PC 2015/06/15
City of Anaheim
Planning Commission
Agenda
Monday, June 15, 2015
Council Chamber, City Hall
200 South Anaheim Boulevard
Anaheim, California
• Chairman: John Seymour
• Chairman Pro-Tempore: Michelle Lieberman
• Commissioners: Peter Agarwal, Paul Bostwick, Mitchell Caldwell, Bill Dalati, Victoria Ramirez
• Call To Order - 5:00 p.m.
• Pledge Of Allegiance
• Public Comments
• Public Hearing Items
• Commission Updates
• Discussion
• Adjournment
For record keeping purposes, if you wish to make a statement regarding any item on the
agenda, please complete a speaker card in advance and submit it to the secretary.
A copy of the staff report may be obtained at the City of Anaheim Planning Department,
200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805. A copy of the staff report is also
available on the City of Anaheim website www.anaheim.net/planning on Thursday,
June 11, 2015, after 5:00 p.m. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda (other than writings legally
exempt from public disclosure) will be made available for public inspection in the
Planning Department located at City Hall, 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim,
California, during regular business hours.
You may leave a message for the Planning Commission using the following e-mail address: planningcommission@anaheim.net
06/15/15 Page 2 of 5
APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS
Any action taken by the Planning Commission this date regarding Reclassifications,
Conditional Use Permits, Variances, Public Convenience or Necessity Determinations, Tentative Tract and Parcel Maps will be final 10 calendar days after Planning Commission
action unless a timely appeal is filed during that time. This appeal shall be made in written
form to the City Clerk, accompanied by an appeal fee in an amount determined by the City
Clerk.
The City Clerk, upon filing of said appeal in the Clerk's Office, shall set said petition for
public hearing before the City Council at the earliest possible date. You will be notified by
the City Clerk of said hearing.
If you challenge any one of these City of Anaheim decisions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this
notice, or in a written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission or City Council
at, or prior to, the public hearing.
Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda - 5:00 P.M.
Public Comments: This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item under the jurisdiction of the Anaheim City Planning Commission or public comments on agenda items with the
exception of public hearing items.
06/15/15 Page 3 of 5
Public Hearing Items
ITEM NO. 2
VARIANCE NO. 2015-05010
(DEV2015-00034) Location: 321 South Old Bridge Road
Request: To allow a side yard setback less than required
by the Zoning Code to construct a residential room addition.
Environmental Determination: The Planning Commission
will consider whether to find the project to be
Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and Guidelines as a Class 1 (Existing Facilities) Categorical Exemption.
Resolution No. ______
Project Planner:
Vanessa Norwood vnorwood@anaheim.net
ITEM NO. 3
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04447B
(DEV2015-00013)
Location: 201 East Center Street
Request: To amend a conditional use permit to add short
term rental units and restaurants with or without outdoor dining
and the sales of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption to the list of permitted uses within an existing mixed use residential building.
Environmental Determination: The Planning Commission will
consider whether to find the project to be Categorically Exempt
from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and Guidelines as a Class 1 (Existing Facilities) Categorical
Exemption.
Resolution No. ______
Project Planner: David See
dsee@anaheim.net
06/15/15 Page 4 of 5
ITEM NO. 4
ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2015-00126
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05789
VARIANCE NO. 2015-05014
PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2015-00117 (DEV2015-00029)
Location: 500 South Anaheim Boulevard
Request: For: 1) a conditional use permit to permit a brewery,
winery and distillery with on-premises sales and consumption of alcoholic beverages, an outdoor patio and tasting area, and a
retail store to include the sale of beer and wine for off-premises consumption; 2) a Zoning Code amendment to allow Alcoholic Beverage Manufacturing facilities and the sale of alcoholic
beverages for off-premises consumption in the Neighborhood Commercial district of the South Anaheim Boulevard Corridor
Overlay zone; 3) an associated determination of public
convenience or necessity related to the sale of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption in conjunction with the
aforementioned uses; and 4) a variance to permit less parking
than required by Code and off-site parking for the aforementioned brewery, winery, and distillery and retail store.
Environmental Determination: The Planning Commission will consider whether a Negative Declaration is the appropriate
environmental documentation for this request under the California Environmental Quality Act.
Motion Resolution No. ______
Resolution No. ______
Project Planner:
David See dsee@anaheim.net
Adjourn to Monday, June 29, 2015 at 5:00 p.m.
06/15/15 Page 5 of 5
CERTIFICATION OF POSTING
I hereby certify that a complete copy of this agenda was posted at:
4:55 p.m. June 11, 2015 (TIME) (DATE) LOCATION: COUNCIL CHAMBER DISPLAY CASE AND COUNCIL DISPLAY KIOSK
SIGNED:
ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
The City of Anaheim wishes to make all of its public meetings and hearings accessible to all
members of the public. The City prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
If requested, the agenda and backup materials will be made available in appropriate alternative
formats to persons with a disability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132), and the federal rules and regulations adopted in implementation thereof.
Any person who requires a disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary
aids or services, in order to participate in the public meeting may request such modification, accommodation, aid or service by contacting the Planning Department either in person at 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California, or by telephone at (714) 765-5139, no later than
10:00 a.m. one business day preceding the scheduled meeting.
La ciudad de Anaheim desea hacer todas sus reuniones y audiencias públicas accesibles a todos
los miembros del público. La Ciudad prohíbe la discriminación por motivos de raza , color u origen
nacional en cualquier programa o actividad que reciba asistencia financiera federal.
Si se solicita, la agenda y los materiales de copia estarán disponible en formatos alternativos
apropiados a las personas con una discapacidad, según lo requiere la Sección 202 del Acta de
Americanos con Discapacidades de 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132), las normas federales y
reglamentos adoptados en aplicación del mismo. Cualquier persona que requiera una modificación relativa a la discapacidad, incluyendo medios
auxiliares o servicios, con el fin de participar en la reunión pública podrá solicitar dicha
modificación, ayuda o servicio poniéndose en contacto con la Oficina de Secretaria de la Ciudad
ya sea en persona en el 200 S Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California, o por teléfono al (714) 765-5139, antes de las 10:00 de la mañana un día habil antes de la reunión programada.
200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net
ITEM NO. 2 PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
City of Anaheim
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DATE: JUNE 15, 2015
SUBJECT: VARIANCE NO. 2015-05010
LOCATION: 321 South Old Bridge Road
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The applicant and property owner is George
Geronsin.
REQUEST: The applicant requests a variance to allow a side yard setback less than
required by the Zoning Code to construct a two-story residential room addition.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the
attached resolution, determining that this request is categorically exempt from further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (Class 1,
Existing Facilities) and approving Variance No. 2015-05010.
BACKGROUND: This 0.56-acre property is developed with a single-family residence
and is located in the Single-Family Hillside Residential (RH-2) and Scenic Corridor (SC) Overlay zones. The site is designated for Estate Density Residential land uses by
the General Plan. The property is surrounded by single family residences in all
directions.
An Administrative Adjustment was approved in 1999 to allow an eight-foot, six-inch
wide setback where a 10-foot wide setback was required, in order to construct a patio
and second story deck on the north side of the residence. Following approval of the
Administrative Adjustment, a property survey was conducted and concluded that the fence line, previously thought to have delineated the property line boundary,
encroached three feet onto the adjacent property to the north. Therefore, the existing
second story deck is actually located five-feet, six-inches from the northern property
line. The adjacent property owner granted a three-foot wide “use and enjoyment
easement” to the subject property in July 2000 to allow the fence line to remain in the existing location.
PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a seven-foot, five-inch wide side yard setback where a 10-foot side yard setback is required to construct a 1,440 square foot, two-story room addition. First story improvements would expand the existing kitchen, add a
laundry room, and add a downstairs bedroom. Second story improvements would
expand the upstairs master bedroom.
VARIANCE NO. 2015-05010
June 15, 2015 Page 2 of 2
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS:
Before the Planning Commission may approve a variance, it must make a finding of fact that the evidence presented shows that the following conditions exist:
1) That there are special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which do not apply to other property under
identical zoning classification in the vicinity;
2) That, because of the special circumstances, shown above, strict application of the
Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other property under
identical zoning classification in the vicinity.
As previously stated, the Zoning Code requires a minimum 10-foot wide side yard setback within
this zone. The minimum setback is measured from the property line and would not include the
three foot wide use easement delineated by the existing fence line. The proposed addition would
be set back a minimum of seven-feet, five-inches from the north property line. The applicant has submitted a letter of justification indicating that the shape of the lot and the orientation of the
existing building restrict development of the property in conformance with the Zoning Code. The
width of the property narrows by approximately 15 feet from the front of the property to the rear
of the property. The existing residence is oriented in a manner that is “squared” to the street, but
angled on the lot. As a result, the northern side yard is “pinched” in the area of the proposed room addition. The addition has been designed to stair-step along the property line in order to
maintain a consistent setback. The proposed room addition is approximately 40 feet from the
adjacent residence to the north. In addition, an approximately 15 foot high hillside planted with
mature Eucalyptus trees separates the proposed room addition from the residence to the north.
Staff believes that the proposed side yard setback is appropriate due to the irregular shape of the
property. The proposed setback would not impact the adjacent property to the north because there
is a significant difference in grade and mature landscaping between the two properties provides an
adequate buffer between the residences. The applicant has demonstrated that the strict application
of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties under identical zoning classification in the vicinity.
CONCLUSION: Staff believes the requested variance is justified because of the irregular shape
of the lot, and the grade difference between this property and the adjacent property to the north. Staff recommends approval of the variance.
Prepared by, Submitted by,
Vanessa Norwood Jonathan E. Borrego Associate Planner Planning Services Manager
Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution
2. Variance Justification Letter
3. Site, Floor and Elevation Plans 4. Photographs
RH-2 (SC)SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
RH-2 (SC)SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
RH-2 (SC)SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
RH-2 (SC)SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
RH-2 (SC)SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
RH-2 (SC)SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
RH-2 (SC)SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
RH-2 (SC)SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
RH-2 (SC)SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
RH-2 (SC)SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
RH-2 (SC)SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
RH-2 (SC)SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
RH-2 (SC)SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
RH-2 (SC)SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
RH-2 (SC)SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
RH-2 (SC)VACANT
RH-2 (SC)SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
S
O
L
D
B
R
I
D
G
E
R
D
S
D
E
L
G
I
O
R
G
I
O
R
D
S C
O
U
N
T
R
Y
H
IL
L R
D
E
S
T
O
N
E
C
R
E
E
K
L
N
E V I S T A D E L S O L
E .C A N YONRIMRD
E .S A N T A A N A C A N Y O N R DE.L A P A L M A A V E
321 South Old Bridge Road
DEV No. 2015-00034
Subject Property APN: 356-331-04
°0 50 100
Feet
Aerial Photo:May 2014
S
O
L
D
B
R
I
D
G
E
R
D
S
D
E
L
G
I
O
R
G
I
O
R
D
S C
O
U
N
T
R
Y
H
IL
L R
D
E
S
T
O
N
E
C
R
E
E
K
L
N
E V I S T A D E L S O L
E .C A N YONRIMRD
E .S A N T A A N A C A N Y O N R DE.L A P A L M A A V E
321 South Old Bridge Road
DEV No. 2015-00034
Subject Property APN: 356-331-04
°0 50 100
Feet
Aerial Photo:May 2014
[DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 1
- 1 - PC2015-***
RESOLUTION NO. PC2015-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING
VARIANCE NO. 2015-05010 AND MAKING
CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH (DEV2015-00034) (321 SOUTH OLD BRIDGE ROAD)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim (hereinafter referred
to as the “Planning Commission”) did receive a verified petition for Variance No. 2015-05010 to allow a side yard setback less than required by the Zoning Code to construct a residential room addition (herein referred to collectively as the "Proposed Project") for certain real property
located at 321 South Old Bridge Road in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of
California, as generally depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated
herein by this reference (the “Property”); and WHEREAS, the Property, consisting of approximately 0.56 acres, is currently
developed with a single-family residence. The Anaheim General Plan designates the Property
for Estate Density residential land uses. The Property is located in the “RH-2” Single-Family
Hillside Residential Zone, which is combined with the Scenic Corridor (SC) Overlay Zone meaning that the regulations contained in Chapter 18.18 (Scenic Corridor (SC) Overlay Zone) shall apply in addition to, and, where inconsistent therewith, shall supersede any regulations of
the “RH-2” Single-Family Hillside Residential Zone contained in Chapter 18.04 (Single-Family
Residential Zones) of the Anaheim Municipal Code (herein referred to as the “Code”); and;
WHEREAS, this Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on June 15, 2015 at 5:00 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been
duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60
(Procedures) of the Code, to hear and consider evidence for and against proposed Variance No.
2015-05010 and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; herein referred to as
“CEQA”), the State of California Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (herein referred to as the "CEQA Guidelines"), and the City's Local CEQA Procedure Manual, the City is the "lead agency" for the preparation and consideration of
environmental documents for the Proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, in conformance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and the City's Local CEQA Procedure Manual, the Planning Commission finds and determines that the effects of the Proposed Project are typical of those generated within that class of projects (i.e., Class 1 –
Existing Facilities) which consist of the repair, maintenance, and/or minor alteration of existing
public or private structures or facilities, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that
existing at the time of this determination, and that, therefore, pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Proposed Project will not cause a significant effect on the environment and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA; and
- 2 - PC2015-***
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study
made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing pertaining to the request for Variance No. 2015-05010 to allow a side yard setback less than required by the Code to construct a residential room addition should be approved for
the following reasons:
SECTION NO. 18.04.100.010.0101 Minimum side yard setback (10 feet required; 7 feet, 5 inches proposed)
1. The requested variance is hereby approved because there are special
circumstances applicable to the Property pertaining to its narrow shape and the fact that the
setback portion of this Property is adjacent to a sloped hillside area and therefore would not impact the adjacent property. Further, the expansion is consistent with the existing building footprint and maintains the existing 7-foot side yard setback and 10-foot fence line. In addition,
nearby properties have obtained variances for similar circumstances and are under the identical
zoning classification.
2. Strict application of the Code would deprive the Property of privileges enjoyed by other properties under the identical zoning classification in the vicinity because other properties
in the area have side yard setbacks less than the required 10 feet.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determines that the evidence in the record constitutes substantial evidence to support the actions taken and the findings made in this Resolution, that the facts stated in this Resolution are supported by substantial evidence in the
record, including testimony received at the public hearing, the staff presentations, the staff report
and all materials in the project files. There is no substantial evidence, nor are there other facts,
that detract from the findings made in this Resolution. The Planning Commission expressly declares that it considered all evidence presented and reached these findings after due consideration of all evidence presented to it.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does
hereby approve Variance No. 2015-05010, contingent upon and subject to the conditions of approval described in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the Property in order to
preserve the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
Extensions for further time to complete conditions of approval may be granted in accordance
with Section 18.60.170 of the Code. Timing for compliance with conditions of approval may be amended by the Planning Director upon a showing of good cause provided (i) equivalent timing is established that satisfies the original intent and purpose of the condition(s), (ii) the
modification complies with the Code, and (iii) the applicant has demonstrated significant
progress toward establishment of the use or approved development.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that any amendment, modification or revocation of this permit may be processed in accordance with Chapters 18.60.190 (Amendment to Permit
Approval) and 18.60.200 (City-Initiated Revocation or Modification of Permits) of the Code.
- 3 - PC2015-***
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby find and
determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction,
then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or
approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of June 15, 2015. Said Resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Section 18.60.130 (Appeals – Planning Commission Decisions) of Chapter 18.60 (Procedures) of the Anaheim
Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council Resolution
in the event of an appeal.
CHAIRMAN, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ATTEST:
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Eleanor Morris, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim,
do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim held on June 15, 2015, by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 15th day of June, 2015.
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
- 4 - PC2015-***
- 5 - PC2015-***
EXHIBIT “B”
VARIANCE NO. 2015-05010 (DEV2015-00034)
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
GENERAL CONDITIONS
1 The property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the
applicant and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit No. 1, (Site Plan), Exhibit No. 2
(Elevation Plans) and Exhibit No. 3 (Floor Plan) and as
conditioned herein.
Planning
Department,
Planning Services Division
2 The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the
City and its officials, officers, employees and agents (collectively
referred to individually and collectively as “Indemnities”) from
any and all claims, actions or proceedings brought against Indemnities to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the
decision of the Indemnities concerning this permit or any of the
proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done, or made prior to
the decision, or to determine the reasonableness, legality or
validity of any condition attached thereto. The Applicant’s indemnification is intended to include, but not be limited to,
damages, fees and/or costs awarded against or incurred by
Indemnities and costs of suit, claim or litigation, including
without limitation attorneys’ fees and other costs, liabilities and
expenses incurred by Indemnities in connection with such proceeding.
Planning
Department,
Planning Services
Division
3 The applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing of this discretionary case application within 30 days of
the issuance of the final invoice or prior to the issuance of building
permits for this project, whichever occurs first. Failure to pay all
charges shall result in delays in the issuance of required permits or may result in the revocation of the approval of this application.
Planning Department,
Planning Services
Division
4 The subject Property shall be developed substantially in
accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the
Planning Department, and as conditioned herein.
Planning
Department, Planning Services
Division
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139
Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net
City of Anaheim
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
There is no new correspondence
regarding this item.
200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805
Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net
ITEM NO. 3
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
City of Anaheim
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DATE: JUNE 15, 2015
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04447B LOCATION: 201 East Center Street (Kraemer Building)
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The applicant and property owner is Vu
Thai with VNT Properties and the agent is Phil Schwarze with the PRS Group. REQUEST: The applicant is requesting to amend a conditional use permit to allow
short-term rental units and restaurants with or without outdoor dining and the sales of
alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption, in an existing mixed use building.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution, determining that this request is categorically exempt under the
California Environmental Quality Act (Class 1, Existing Facilities) and approving
Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04447B.
BACKGROUND: This 0.21-acre property is located in the General Commercial (C-G) Zone and is designated for Mixed Use land uses by the General Plan. The
property is developed with a 9-story, mixed use building consisting of offices on the
first and second (mezzanine) floors, residential units on the third through seventh
floors, a penthouse, and a basement. The building, commonly referred to as the Kraemer Building, is a historically significant structure that was constructed in 1924. The building was added to the National Register of Historic Places in 1983.
Surrounding uses include apartments to the north, a City-owned parking structure to
the east, and commercial buildings to the south and west.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04447 was approved by the Planning Commission in 2001 to permit a mixed use development with 20 residential units and accessory
office and retail uses. This permit was amended in 2002 to modify previously-
approved exhibits and conditions of approval to permit an additional two-bedroom
residential unit in the penthouse for a total of 21 residential units. The residential units are further described as follows:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04447B June 15, 2015 Page 2 of 4
Floors No. of Beds/Baths Size (sq. ft.) No of Units
3 – 7 1 Bed / 1 Bath 2 Bed / 2 Bath 559 900 4 16
Penthouse* ---- ---- 1
Total 21
* The penthouse suite was approved as a residential unit but is currently unimproved and vacant.
PROPOSAL: The applicant requests an amendment to a previously-approved conditional use
permit to allow use of the existing residential units and future penthouse unit as short-term rental units, and to permit a full-service or take-out restaurant with or without outdoor dining and the sale of alcoholic beverages as a potential commercial use within the building.
Short-Term Rentals: The applicant proposes to use the available, vacant residential units as
short-term rentals for lodging or sleeping purposes for periods of less than 30 consecutive days. The existing residential tenants remain in the building until their leases expire. All of the units contain a kitchen, living room, bedroom(s), closets, bathroom(s), and laundry facilities. The use
of the property for short-term rentals would be required to comply with the standards and
regulations of the Short-Term Rentals Ordinance (Chapter 4.05 of the Anaheim Municipal Code)
that was adopted by the City Council in April, 2014. There are no physical changes to the residential units or building exterior proposed as part of this request.
Future Restaurant with alcoholic beverage sales: The applicant also proposes an amendment to
Condition No. 2 of Resolution No. PC2002-128 to modify the list of permitted commercial uses
in the building to include full-service or take-out restaurants with or without outdoor dining and the sale of alcoholic beverages for on-site consumption. A specific restaurant tenant is not proposed at this time. The restaurant could potentially occupy approximately 2,000 square feet
of area on the first floor with an approximately 2,000 square foot outdoor dining area on the
south and east sides of the building adjacent to Center Street.
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS:
Conditional Use Permit: Before the Planning Commission grants an amendment to a conditional
use permit, it must make a finding of fact that the evidence presented shows that all of the
following conditions exist: 1) That the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized
by this code, or is an unlisted use as defined in subsection .030 (Unlisted Uses
Permitted) of Section 18.66.040 (Approval Authority);
2) That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses, or the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located;
3) That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use is adequate to allow the full
development of the proposed use, in a manner not detrimental to either the particular area or health and safety;
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04447B June 15, 2015 Page 3 of 4
4) That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area; and
5) That the granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed, if any,
will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
The conversion of the Kraemer Building from an office building to a mixed use building was approved by conditional use permit as an “Unlisted Use.” The Zoning Code allows “Unlisted
Uses” to be approved by conditional use permit if a use is not authorized or mentioned in any
zone throughout the City, and the Planning Director has determined that the use does not fit into
an existing use class. The Zoning Code did not include provisions for the development of mixed-use projects in 2001 which is why this provision was used.
The Zoning Code allows short-term rentals within a zoning district where residential uses are
allowed, subject to review and approval of an administrative “Short-Term Rental Permit.” All
such permits are subject to standards and conditions pertaining to building and fire safety requirements, Health and Safety Codes, off-street parking, entertainment and sign prohibitions. In addition, operational standards require a minimum stay of three nights, occupancy restrictions,
and trash and litter containment. These short-term rental requirements as stated in the Municipal
Code are included as Attachment No. 4 to the staff report.
Restaurants with sales of alcoholic beverages require approval of a conditional use permit in this
zone in order to determine compatibility with surrounding land uses. Staff believes the addition
of this restaurant with alcoholic beverage sales would be compatible with other adjacent offices
on the bottom three floors of the building, as well as the nearby commercial properties. To
ensure that restaurant will not have an impact on the residential units on the third through seventh floors, staff has included a condition of approval in the draft resolution which requires
the applicant to submit operation and floor plans to the Planning Department for review and
approval by the Planning Commission as a "Reports and Recommendations" item prior to the
establishment of a restaurant.
Parking: All parking for this building is currently provided in the adjacent 6-story public parking
structure to the east. This structure contains a total of 621 spaces. Parking in this structure is
also used by visitors and employees of City Hall, Downtown Community Center, adjacent
commercial properties, and the adjacent apartment complexes to the north. The Community
Development Department manages this parking structure, which is owned by the City, as the Successor Agency to the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency. The City currently leases 128
parking spaces to the owner of the Kraemer Building for its tenants. The parking structure has
excess parking capacity above the current parking demands of the surrounding land uses. A
condition of approval has been added to the draft resolution requiring the applicant to amend the
current parking lease in the event that actual parking demands increase due to the proposed project.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04447B June 15, 2015 Page 4 of 4
CONCLUSION: The request to permit short-term rental units and a restaurant with outdoor
dining and alcoholic beverage sales for on-site consumption within an existing mixed use building would be compatible with existing and surrounding uses. In addition, the proposed uses would not compromise the historic integrity of the building. Therefore, staff recommends
approval of this request.
Prepared by, Submitted by,
David See Jonathan E. Borrego
Senior Planner Planning Services Manager Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution
2. Applicant’s Letter of Operation
3. Police Department Memorandum 4. Short Term Rental Zoning Code requirements 5. Site and Floor Plans
6. Site Photographs
C -G
K R A E M E R
B U I L D I N G
A P T S
C-GRETAIL
RM-4VILLAGE CENTERAPTS100 DU
C-GCOLONYPARK
C-GTHEATER
C-GPARKING LOT
C-GSENIORCITIZENS HOUSING75 DU
C-GPARKINGSTRUCTURE
O-LOFFICES
C-GCITY HALL
C-GPARKING
C-G (DMU)RETAIL
C-G (DMU)RETAIL
C-GOFFICES
C -G
D O W N T O W N C O M M U N I T Y
C E N T E R C -G
D O W N T O W N
C O M M U N I T Y
C E N T E R
C-G (DMU)CITY HALL
E C E N T E R S T
N
E
M
I
L
Y
S
T
N
C
L
A
U
D
I
N
A
S
T
N
P
H
I
L
A
D
E
L
P
H
I
A
S
T
W O A K S T
N
C
L
A
U
D
I
N
A
S
T
E L I N C O L N A V E
S
A
N
A
H
E
I
M
B
L
V
D
S
.
E
A
S
T
S
T
E. LA PALMA AVE
E. LIN COLN AV E
N
.
E
A
S
T
S
T
N
.
H
A
R
B
O
R
B
L
V
D
W. LA PALMA AVE
W. B R OA D W AY
N
.
A
N
A
H
E
I
M
B
L
V
D
E . B RO AD WAY
W .L IN CO L N A V E
S
.
A
N
A
H
E
I
M
B
L
V
D
W.BR O A D W AY E . B RO AD WAY
201 East Center Street
DEV No. 2015-00013
Subject Property APN: 255-076-04
°0 50 100
Feet
Aerial Photo:May 2014
E C E N T E R S T
N
E
M
I
L
Y
S
T
N
C
L
A
U
D
I
N
A
S
T
N
P
H
I
L
A
D
E
L
P
H
I
A
S
T
W O A K S T
N
C
L
A
U
D
I
N
A
S
T
E L I N C O L N A V E
S
A
N
A
H
E
I
M
B
L
V
D
S
.
E
A
S
T
S
T
E. LA PALMA AVE
E. LIN COLN AV E
N
.
E
A
S
T
S
T
N
.
H
A
R
B
O
R
B
L
V
D
W. LA PALMA AVE
W. B R OA D W AY
N
.
A
N
A
H
E
I
M
B
L
V
D
E . B RO AD WAY
W .L IN CO L N A V E
S
.
A
N
A
H
E
I
M
B
L
V
D
W.BR O A D W AY E . B RO AD WAY
201 East Center Street
DEV No. 2015-00013
Subject Property APN: 255-076-04
°0 50 100
Feet
Aerial Photo:May 2014
[DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 1
- 1 - PC2015-***
RESOLUTION NO. PC2015-***
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04447,
AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH (DEV2015-00013)
(201 EAST CENTER STREET)
WHEREAS, on September 24, 2001, and subject to certain conditions of approval, the
Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim (the "Planning Commission"), by its Resolution No. PC2001-140, approved Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04447 (herein referred to as the
"Original CUP") to permit the conversion of a historically significant 9-story office building
known as the Kraemer Building to a mixed use development consisting of residential units and
accessory office and retail uses at 201 East Center Street in the City of Anaheim, County of
Orange, State of California, which is generally depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Property"); and
WHEREAS, on September 9, 2002, and subject to certain conditions of approval, the
Planning Commission by its Resolution No. PC2002-128, approved an amendment to the
Original CUP to amend previously-approved exhibits and conditions of approval pertaining to the penthouse residential unit at the Property; and
WHEREAS, the Original CUP and the subsequent amendments shall be referred to herein
collectively as the "CUP". The conditions of approval which were the subject of the Original
CUP, as amended and modified by the subsequent approval, shall be referred to herein collectively as the "Previous Conditions of Approval"; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did receive a verified petition to further amend
the CUP to add short-term rental units and restaurants with or without outdoor dining and the
sale of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption to the list of permitted uses within the existing mixed use building ("Proposed Project") pursuant to Section 18.60.190 (Amendment of
Permit Approval) of Chapter 18.60 (Procedures) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal
Code (“Code”). Said amendment to the CUP is designated herein as Conditional Use Permit No.
2001-04447B; and
WHEREAS, the Property is located in the "CG" General Commercial Zone and is subject
to the zoning and development standards contained in Chapter 18.08 (Commercial Zones) of the
Code. The Anaheim General Plan designates this Property for Mixed Use land uses; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; herein referred to as “CEQA”) and the State of California
Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (commencing with
Section 15000 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations; herein referred to as the "State
CEQA Guidelines"), the City is the "lead agency" for the preparation and consideration of
environmental documents for the Proposed Project; and
- 2 - PC2015-***
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds and determines that the Proposed Project is within that class of projects (i.e., Class 1 – Existing Facilities) which consist of the repair,
maintenance, and/or minor alteration of existing public or private structures or facilities,
involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of this
determination, and that, therefore, pursuant to Section 15301 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Proposed Project will not cause a significant effect on the environment and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in
the City of Anaheim on June 15, 2015, at 5:00 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60 of the Code, to hear and consider evidence and testimony for and against the Proposed Project and to
investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and determine the following facts with respect to Conditional Use Permit
No. 2003-04671C:
1. Pursuant to the authority conferred upon the Planning Director by Section 18.66.040 (Approval Authority) of Chapter 18.66 (Conditional Use Permits) of the Code and, specifically, paragraph .0201 of Subsection .020 (Unlisted Uses Permitted), the Planning
Director has found and determined that the Proposed Project does not fit into an existing use
class, as provided in subsection .020 (Inclusion of Specific Uses) of Section 18.36.020
(Classification of Uses), but may be authorized by conditional use permit until such time as the Code is amended to include such a use; and
2. The Planning Commission agrees with the Planning Director's determination and
finds that the Proposed Project is an unlisted use and is properly one for which a conditional use
is authorized by the Code; and 3. The Proposed Project will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses, or the
growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located because the use would
be compatible with the adjacent land uses, promote the long term viability and encourage
pedestrian activity, encourage a balanced mix of residential and commercial uses, and promote the investment and revitalization of properties within the downtown area; and
4. The size and shape of the site proposed for the Proposed Project is adequate to
allow the full development of the Proposed Project in a manner not detrimental to either the
particular area or to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim because no expansion to the existing bulding is proposed and the Property is currently improved with a mixed use residential building with sufficient parking in the adjacent public parking structure;
and
5. The traffic generated by the Proposed Project will not impose an undue burden
upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area because the
traffic generated by this use will not exceed the anticipated volumes of traffic on the surrounding
streets and adequate parking will be provided to accommodate the use; and
- 3 - PC2015-***
6. The granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04447B under the conditions imposed will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim and will provide a land use that is compatible with the surrounding area.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determines that the evidence in the record
constitutes substantial evidence to support the actions taken and the findings made in this Resolution, that the facts stated in this Resolution are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including testimony received at the public hearing, the staff presentations, the staff report
and all materials in the project files. There is no substantial evidence, nor are there other facts,
that detract from the findings made in this Resolution. The Planning Commission expressly
declares that it considered all evidence presented and reached these findings after due consideration of all evidence presented to it.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission, for the reasons
hereinabove stated, that Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04447B is hereby approved, thereby
amending the CUP and permitting short-term rental units and restaurants with or without outdoor dining and the sales of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption within the premises of the restaurant(s) to the list of permitted uses for the Proposed Project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, effective upon the effective date of this Resolution,
the conditions of approval attached to this Resolution as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Revised Conditions of Approval") amend the Previous Conditions of
Approval and hereby replace the Previous Conditions of Approval in their entirety. All
references to the conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04447 shall be to
the Revised Conditions of Approval attached to this Resolution as Exhibit B, which shall control
and govern the CUP, as amended by Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04447B.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the conditions of approval described in Exhibit B
attached hereto, are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the
Property under Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04447B in order to preserve the health, safety
and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Extensions for further time to complete conditions of approval related to the uses permitted under Conditional Use Permit No.
2001-04447B may be granted in accordance with Section 18.60.170 of the Code. Timing for
compliance with conditions of approval may be amended by the Planning Director upon a
showing of good cause provided (i) equivalent timing is established that satisfies the original
intent and purpose of the condition, (ii) the modification complies with the Code, and (iii) the applicant has demonstrated significant progress toward establishment of the use or approved
development.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that any amendment, modification or revocation of this
permit may be processed in accordance with Chapters 18.60.190 (Amendment to Permit Approval) and 18.60.200 (City-Initiated Revocation or Modification of Permits) of the Code.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby find and
determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance
with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and
void.
- 4 - PC2015-***
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval of this application constitutes approval of
the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Code and any other applicable
City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to
compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of
June 15, 2015. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60
(Procedures) of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal.
CHAIRMAN, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ATTEST:
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Eleanor Morris, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Anaheim held on June 15, 2015, by the following vote of the
members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 15th day of June, 2015.
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
- 5 - PC2015-***
- 6 - PC2015-***
EXHIBIT “B”
AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04447 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04447B) (DEV2015-00013)
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
GENERAL
1 The following listed commercial uses shall be prohibited on or at the subject property. An unsubordinated covenant prohibiting said uses shall be prepared by the property owner, at his/her/its sole cost and
expense, and reviewed and approved by the City Attorney (or his
designee) prior to recordation in the Official Records of the
County of Orange. A copy of the recorded covenant shall be submitted to the Planning Services Division.
(1) Bars, nightclubs, and public dance halls
(2) Arcades
(3) Liquor stores (4) Pawnshops (5) Laundromats available to the general public
(6) Tattoo parlors
(7) Dry cleaning establishments with on-site dry cleaning
(8) Churches (9) Sex oriented businesses (10) Banquet halls
(11) Fast food restaurants
Planning Department, Code Enforcement Division
2 The permitted office and retail uses shall be limited to the following
listed uses or such other uses as may be approved by the Planning
Commission. An unsubordinated covenant shall be prepared by the
property owner, at his/her/its sole cost and expense, and reviewed and
approved by the City Attorney (or his designee) prior to its recordation in the Official Records of the County of Orange. A copy of the
recorded covenant shall be submitted to the Planning Services
Division.
(1) Accounting, bookkeeping, CPA firms, and temporary CPA firms
(2) Advertising
(3) Antique shops
(4) Appraisers
(5) Art, music and photography studios (6) Bakeries
Planning Department,
Planning Services
Division
- 7 - PC2015-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
(7) Banks and financial firms
(8) Barbers, beauty shops, and nail salons
(9) Book Stores (10) Brokers: real estate, business opportunities, etc. Business systems companies
(11) Business/trade school and training center
(12) Clothing and shoe stores
(13) Communication consultants (14) Computer analysis firms (15) Confectionery and candy stores
(16) Credit reporting agencies
(17) Designers: industrial, interior, graphic
(18) Development companies (19) Drugstores and pharmacies (20) Dry cleaning (drop-off and pick-up convenience center without
on-site dry cleaning)
(21) Facility maintenance and planning
(22) General professional business offices (23) Hobby shops (24) Insurance companies and agencies
(25) Inventory services
(26) Jewelry stores
(27) Leasing companies (28) Management consultants and management companies (29) Marketing research
(30) Medical and dental offices
(31) Personnel agencies
(32) Quality control analysis (33) Restaurants: full-service and/or take-out restaurants, with or without outdoor dining and alcoholic beverages sales for on-
premises consumption
(34) Sales offices
(35) Secretarial and business services
3 A maximum of twenty one (21) residential units shall be permitted on
the property, which may be used and available as short-term rentals in
accordance with the standards and regulations contained in Chapter 4.05 (Short-Term Rentals) of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
Planning Department,
Planning Services
Division
4 The owner/developer of the property shall maintain an Owner
Participation Agreement ("OPA") with the City of Anaheim
Community Development Department. An unsubordinated covenant shall be submitted to the Planning and Community Development
Departments, and shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Attorney's Office, stating that any future building modifications and/or
rehabilitation shall be consistent with the National Park Services
Standards for Historic Preservation, Anaheim Colony Historic Preservation Guidelines, and Downtown Guide for Development in
Planning Department,
Planning Services
Division
Community Development
Department
- 8 - PC2015-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
order to preserve all significant, historic features of the interior and
exterior of the Kraemer building. Moreover, the owner/developer shall
install materials and finishes of high quality with expert craftsmanship and design, and state-of-the-art amenities. Said covenant shall be recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder.
5 No unscreened roof-mounted equipment shall be permitted on the
building. Planning Department,
Code Enforcement Division
6 Freestanding signs shall not be permitted on the subject property. All
future wall signage shall be reviewed and approved by the Zoning
Division and Community Development Department.
Planning Department,
Planning Services
Division
7 Any tree planted on-site shall be replaced in a timely manner in the
event that such tree is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dies. Planning Department,
Code Enforcement
Division
8 The existing mature trees in the planters along the Center Street
frontage and within the court yard east of the building shall be
retained, where possible.
Planning Department,
Code Enforcement
Division
9 The landscape planters shall be permanently maintained with live and healthy plants. Planning Department, Code Enforcement
Division
10 The location(s) for future above-ground utility devices including, but not limited to, electrical transformers, water backflow devices, gas,
communications and cable devices, etc., shall be shown on the plans
submitted for building permits. Said plans shall also identify the
specific screening treatment of each device (i.e., landscape screening,
color of walls, materials, identifiers, access points, etc.) and shall be subject to the review and approval of the appropriate City departments.
Planning Department, Planning Services Division
11 Prior to commencing operation of any office, retail, restaurant, or home
occupation businesses, valid business licenses shall be obtained from
the Business License Division of the City of Anaheim.
Planning Department,
Business License
Division
12 Trash storage area(s) shall be refurbished and maintained in location(s)
acceptable to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation
Division, and in accordance with approved plans on file with said Department. Said storage area(s) shall be designed, located and screened so as not to be readily identifiable from adjacent streets or
highways. The walls of the storage area(s) shall be protected from
graffiti opportunities by the use of plants such as minimum one (1)
gallon sized clinging vines planted on maximum three (3) foot centers, or tall shrubbery.
Public Works, Streets
and Sanitation Division
- 9 - PC2015-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
13 Window signs shall not be permitted unless specifically approved by
the Planning Commission to allow for professionally applied
historically accurate identification signage.
Planning Department,
Planning Services
Division
14 The availability of parking for this building shall be in conformance
with Code requirements. Based on the availability of one hundred
twenty-eight (128) parking spaces in the adjacent parking City-owned
parking structure and a parking requirement of forty six (46) spaces for the twenty one (21) approved residential units, the non-residential uses shall not exceed a parking requirement of eighty-two (82) spaces.
Should additional Code-required parking be needed based upon the
future tenant mix of the office/retail/restaurant areas of the building,
additional parking may be made available and secured through an agreement with the Community Development Department.
Planning Department,
Planning Services
Division
Community Development Department
15 Any graffiti painted or marked upon the premises or on any adjacent area
under the control of the property owner shall be removed or painted over
within 24 hours of being discovered.
Planning Department,
Code Enforcement
Division
16 The applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the
processing of this discretionary case application within 30 days of the
issuance of the final invoice or prior to the issuance of building permits
for this project, whichever occurs first. Failure to pay all charges shall result in delays in the issuance of required permits or may result in the
revocation of the approval of this application.
17 The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its officials, officers, employees and agents (collectively referred to individually and collectively as “Indemnitees”) from any and all claims,
actions or proceedings brought against Indemnitees to attack, review, set
aside, void, or annul the decision of the Indemnitees concerning this
permit or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done, or made prior to the decision, or to determine the reasonableness, legality or validity of any condition attached thereto. The Applicant’s
indemnification is intended to include, but not be limited to, damages,
fees and/or costs awarded against or incurred by Indemnitees and costs of
suit, claim or litigation, including without limitation attorneys’ fees and other costs, liabilities and expenses incurred by Indemnitees in connection with such proceeding.
Planning Department, Planning Services Division
18 The subject Property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the applicant and which plans are on file with the Planning Department, and
as conditioned herein.
Planning Department,
Planning Services Division
19 Adequate lighting of parking lots, passageways, recesses, and grounds
contiguous to buildings shall be provided with lighting of sufficient wattage to provide adequate illumination to make clearly visible the
presence of any person on or about the premises during the hours of
Planning Department,
Code Enforcement Division
- 10 - PC2015-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
darkness and provide a safe, secure environment for all person, property,
and vehicles on-site.
20 Any future roof top patio/deck area shall be closed and secured at 10:00
p.m. seven days a week. Police Department,
Code Enforcement
Division
21 The facility shall be equipped with a comprehensive security alarm system (silent or audible) for the following coverage areas:
• Panic/Robbery alarm buttons for restaurants and
cashier/manager’s office
• High valued storage areas
Police Department
22 Complete a Burglary/Robbery Alarm Permit application, Form APD 516,
and return it to the Police Department prior to initial alarm activation.
This form is available at the Police Department front counter, or it can be emailed to applicant by contacting Officer Budds at mbudds@anaheim.net.
Police Department
23 A closed circuit television (CCTV) security system shall be installed,
with the following coverage areas:
• All Pedestrian Entrances
• Exterior view
• Interior view
• All Elevator lobbies
• All Stairwells
• Interior hallways
• Front Counter/Cashier’s area
• Back of House hallway
Police Department
24 CCTV monitors and recorders shall be secured in a separate locked compartment to prevent theft of, or tampering with, the recording.
With advances in technology, digital and wireless CCTV security
systems are readily available and highly recommended over older VHS
or “Tape” recording systems.
CCTV recordings should be kept for a minimum of 30 days before being deleted or recorded over.
If used, CCTV videotapes should not be recorded over more than 10
items per tape.
If security cameras are not monitored, signs indicating so shall be placed at each camera.
Police Department
25 Rooftop address numbers for the police helicopter. Minimum size 4 feet
in height and 2 feet in width. The lines of the numbers are to be a
minimum of 6 inches thick. Numbers shall be spaced 12 to 18 inches apart. Numbers shall be painted or constructed in a contrasting color to
Police Department
- 11 - PC2015-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
the roofing material. Numbers shall face the street to which the structure
is addressed. Numbers are not to be visible from ground level.
26 Access Key/Card activated locked doors/gates shall be in place for all
pedestrian entrances to residential room hallways, stairwells and/or
elevators.
All exterior residential unit doors shall have adequate security hardware,
e.g. deadbolt locks.
Wide-angle peepholes or other viewing device shall be installed in solid doors where natural surveillance is compromised.
The locks shall be so constructed that both the deadbolt and deadlocking
latch can be retracted by a single action of the inside doorknob/lever/turn
piece.
Police Department
27 Compliance with AMC 6016, the Anaheim Public Safety Radio System
Coverage Ordinance is required. To request a copy of the ordinance,
contact Officer Budds at (714) 765-3859 or mbudds@anaheim.net. A
copy of the ordinance can also be viewed/download online through the City of Anaheim web site under “City Records”
http://www.anaheim.net/.
This coverage shall include existing parking structure on any level to be
utilized by guests/residents or employees of facility, as well as, new
construction of residential towers.
Police Department
RESTAURANTS WITH ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SALES FOR ON-PREMISES CONSUMPTION AND
OUTDOOR DINING
28 Prior to issuance of a building permit for a future restaurant the property owner/developer shall submit a sewer study for review and approval of
the City Engineer to assist in determining if the development (1)
discharges into a sewer system that is currently deficient or will become
deficient because of that discharge and/or (2) increases flows or changes points of discharge. Then the property owner/developer shall be required
to guarantee mitigation to the satisfaction of the City Engineer of the
impact prior to issuance of the building permit.
Public Works Department,
Development Services
Division
29 Prior to issuance of a building permit for a future restaurant, final tenant operation plans, floor plans, and outdoor dining improvement plans
shall be submitted to the Planning Services Division for review and
approval by the Planning Commission as a "Reports and
Recommendations" item.
Planning Department
30 There shall be no admission fee, cover charge, nor minimum purchase
required for the number of alcoholic beverages. Police Department
- 12 - PC2015-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
31 The operation of any business under this permit shall not be in violation
of any provision of the Anaheim Municipal Code, State, or County
ordinance.
Police Department
32 There shall be no exterior advertising of any kind or type, including
advertising directed to the exterior from within, promoting or indicating
the availability of alcoholic beverages.
Police Department
33 Subject alcoholic beverage license shall not be exchanged for a public premise (bar) type license nor shall the establishment be operated as a public premise as defined in Section 23039 of the Business and
Professions Code.
Police Department
34 At all times when the premise is open for business, the premise shall be maintained as a bona fide restaurant and shall provide a menu containing an assortment of foods normally offered in such restaurant.
Police Department
35 Any and all security officers provided on site shall comply with all State
and Local ordinances regulating their services, including, without
limitation, Chapter 11.5 of Division 3 of the California Business and Profession Code.
Police Department
36 There shall be no entertainment, amplified music or dancing permitted on
the premise at any time unless the proper permits have been obtained from the City of Anaheim.
Police Department
37 Security measures shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Anaheim
Police Department to deter unlawful conduct of employees and patrons,
promote safe and orderly assembly and movement of persons and
vehicles, and to prevent disturbances to the neighborhood by excessive noise created by patrons entering or leaving the premises.
Police Department
38 The business shall not employ or permit any persons to solicit or
encourage others, directly or indirectly, to buy them drinks in the
licensed premises under any commission, percentage, salary, or other profit-sharing plan, scheme or conspiracy. (Section 24200.5 Alcoholic
Beverage Control Act).
Police Department
39 Managers and Owners of the establishment shall call the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control and obtain LEAD (Licensee Education on Alcohol and Drugs Program) Training for themselves and service
employees. The number is 714-558-4101.
Police Department
40 The number of persons shall not exceed the maximum occupancy load as determined by the Anaheim Fire Department. Signs indicating the occupant load shall be posted in a conspicuous place on an approved sign
near the main exit from the room. (Section 25.114(a) Uniform Fire
Code).
Police Department
41 The door(s) shall be kept closed at all times during the operation of the
premises except in cases of emergency. Said door(s) not to consist
solely of a screen or ventilated security door.
Police Department
42 The sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption off the premises shall be prohibited. Police Department
- 13 - PC2015-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
43 The hours of operation for the restaurant shall be limited to 12:00 a.m.
seven days a week. Police Department
44 The business owner shall be responsible for maintaining free of litter the
area adjacent to the premises over which they have control. Police Department
45 The area around the building shall be provided with enough lighting to illuminate and make clearly visible the presence of any person on or about the premises during the hours of darkness and provide a safe,
secure environment for all persons, property, and vehicles on-site.
Police Department
46 The business shall not be operated as a nightclub or bar. Police Department
47 The applicant shall police the area under their control in an effort to
prevent the loitering of persons about the premises. Police Department
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST
FOR THE KRAMER BUILDING
201 E. Center Street.
The Kramer Building is a key element in the Anaheim Colony Historic District. This historic
building is 35,675 square feet and features a mix of residential and commercial tenants with approximately 25,490 square feet of existing commercial uses.
The commercial tenants are located in the basement 3,320 square feet, first floor and mezzanine 5,729 square feet and roof 790 square feet.
Floors two through six contain 20 residential units from studio units to two bedroom units.
The proposal for this building is convert the residential units into short term /vacation ownership
units for visitors to the area who need a place to stay for a longer period of time. The conversion to “Longer term tenancy” will occur as existing rental units become available through
the normal vacancy process. We propose to pay TOT as required by the Anaheim Municipal Code.
Our proposal includes converting the existing first floor commercial to a restaurant (an approximately 1,500 S.F) with a (1,200 s.f) outdoor dining area. We propose to have on-sale
alcoholic beverages. Currently we do not have a restaurant tenant. The requested entitlements will not adversely affect the adjoining land use. In fact having a
restaurant at the establishment will enhance the general area.
Also we are not adding additional units; this will in fact be lesser than what is existing today.
The site has ample space to accommodate the uses and there will be no traffic impacts.
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
SHORT TERM RENTALS
ZONING CODE REQUIREMENTS
Chapter 4.05 SHORT-TERM RENTALS Sections:
4.05.010 Title.
4.05.020 Purpose and Intent.
4.05.030 Definitions. 4.05.040 Permit Required.
4.05.050 Agents.
4.05.060 Application for Permit.
4.05.070 Renewal of Permit.
4.05.080 Denial of Permit. 4.05.090 Filing Fee.
4.05.100 Conditions of Permit Issuance and Renewal.
4.05.110 Audit.
4.05.120 Violations/Penalties.
4.05.130 Procedure for Imposition of Penalties/Revocation. 4.05.140 Effect of Short-Term Rentals Ordinance on Other Provisions of Code.
4.05.150 Effective Date for Compliance.
4.05.010 TITLE. This chapter is known as the “Short-Term Rentals Ordinance,” may be cited as such, and will be referred to
herein as “this chapter.” (Ord. 6299 § 1 (part); May 13, 2014.)
4.05.020 PURPOSE AND INTENT. The use of residential dwelling units within the City of Anaheim as short-term rentals for lodging or sleeping
purposes for periods of less than thirty (30) consecutive days can escalate the demand for city services and
create adverse impacts in zoning districts that allow residential uses. Incidents involving excessive noise,
disorderly conduct, vandalism, overcrowding, traffic congestion, illegal parking of vehicles, and the accumulation of refuse can be directly related to short-term rentals, which increasingly require response from police, fire, paramedic and other city services. The purpose of this chapter is to regulate the activity of renting a
dwelling unit in a residential neighborhood in order to prevent the burden on city services and adverse impacts
on residential neighborhoods posed by short-term rentals by placing the responsibility upon the owners of short-
term rental units to control the conduct of guests and occupants. (Ord. 6299 § 1 (part); May 13, 2014.)
4.05.030 DEFINITIONS.
The definitions contained in this section shall govern the construction, meaning and application of words and
phrases used in this chapter. A. “Agent” shall mean an individual, company or entity engaged by the owner of a short-term rental property to
represent, manage or oversee the operations of a short-term rental unit or short-term rental property on behalf of
the owner and designated as such by the owner in accordance with Section 4.05.060.
B. “City Manager” shall have the same meaning as Section 600 (City Manager) of the Charter of the City of
Anaheim, and shall include his or her authorized representative. C. “Dwelling” is defined in Section 18.92.070 (“D” Words, Terms and Phrases) of Chapter 18.92 (Definitions)
of this code.
D. “License Collector” shall have the same meaning as Section 1.01.305 (Construction—“License Collector”)
of the code, and shall include his or her authorized representative.
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
E. “Planning Director” shall mean the Planning Director of the City of Anaheim or the Planning Director’s
authorized representative, including the Community Preservation Manager and any Community Preservation
Officer or staff so designated by either the Planning Director or the Community Preservation Manager to carry
out responsibilities under this chapter. F. “Off-street parking” shall mean the parking of vehicles on privately owned property that the owner has the
legal right to utilize for parking. All off-street parking required by this Chapter shall conform to the provisions
of Section 18.42.060 (Parking Dimensions and Access) of Chapter 18.42 (Parking and Loading) of this Code. In
no event shall off-street parking include the use of landscaped areas or the blocking of public rights-of-way.
G. “Owner” shall mean the person(s) or entity(ies) that hold(s) legal or equitable title to a short-term rental unit. “Owner” includes a lessee where a lessee is offering a dwelling, or any portion thereof, as a short-term rental. H. “Person” means any individual, firm, partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal
organization, joint stock company, corporation, estate, trust, business trust, receiver, trustee, syndicate, or any
other group or combination acting as a unit.
I. “Rent” shall have the meaning provided in Section 2.12.005.080 of Chapter 2.12 (Transient Occupancy Tax) of this code and, for the purpose of this definition, the term “operator” shall mean an “owner” leasing,
subleasing, letting or hiring for occupancy.
J. “Short-term rental” shall mean the rental to a person or group of persons of a short-term rental unit leased or
owned by an owner for occupancy, for dwelling, lodging or sleeping purposes for a period of less than thirty
(30) consecutive calendar days in a zoning district where residential uses are allowed. K. “Short-term rental permit” shall mean an annual registration submitted to the City pursuant to this chapter.
L. “Short-term rental property” means a parcel of real property, as shown on the latest equalized tax assessment
roll as maintained by the assessor of the County of Orange, upon which a short-term rental unit (or units) is
(are) maintained. “Short-term rental property” includes the premises upon which a short-term rental unit is
located, including parking areas, driveways, landscaping, accessory structures, fences, walls, swimming pools, hot tubs, and spas.
M. “Short-term rental unit” shall mean a dwelling, or any portion thereof, that is being rented, or is intended to
be rented, as a short-term rental to a person or group of persons. (Ord. 6299 § 1 (part); May 13, 2014.)
4.05.040 PERMIT REQUIRED. .010 This chapter applies to all short-term rental units. No owner of a short-term rental unit located within a
zoning district where residential uses are allowed shall rent, offer to rent, or advertise for rent the short-term
rental unit to another person without a valid short-term rental permit approved and issued in the manner provided for by this chapter. .020 No agent or representative, real estate agent or broker, or professional services company shall list or rent
a short-term rental unit within the City of Anaheim without a valid short-term rental permit for that short-term
rental unit approved and issued pursuant to this chapter. (Ord. 6299 § 1 (part); May 13, 2014.)
4.05.050 AGENTS.
An owner may retain an agent or a representative to comply with the requirements of this chapter, including,
without limitation, the filing of a complete application for a short-term rental permit that has been signed and
notarized by the owner, the management of a short-term rental property or short-term rental unit(s), the filing of all reports and remittance of transient occupancy taxes, and the compliance with the conditions of the short-term
rental permit and the requirements of this chapter. The short-term rental permit shall be issued only to the owner
of a short-term rental unit or units. The owner of a short-term rental unit shall remain responsible for
compliance with the provisions of this chapter and the failure of an agent to comply with this chapter shall not
relieve the owner of the owner’s obligations under the provisions of this chapter and shall be deemed non-compliance by the owner. (Ord. 6299 § 1 (part); May 13, 2014.)
4.05.060 APPLICATION FOR SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT.
.010 The owner or the owner’s agent shall submit an application for a short-term rental permit to the License
Collector upon forms provided by the City. The application for a short-term rental permit shall contain the
following information:
A. The name, address and telephone number of the owner of the short-term rental unit(s) for which the short-term rental permit is to be issued.
B. The name, address and telephone number of the agent, if any, of the owner of the short-term rental unit(s).
C. The address of the short-term rental property proposed to be used as a short-term rental unit(s).
D. The number of bedrooms and the applicable occupancy limit of the short-term rental unit(s).
E. Acknowledgement of receipt and inspection of a copy of all regulations pertaining to the operation of a short-term rental unit.
F. Such other information as the License Collector or the Planning Director deems reasonably necessary to
administer this chapter.
.020 Upon a change of ownership of a short-term rental property or a change of the agent or change in any
material facts set forth in the application for a short-term rental permit, including an application for the annual renewal thereof, a new short-term rental permit shall be required to continue operation of the short-term rental
property, which the owner shall submit to the city within fourteen (14) days of said change. (Ord. 6299 § 1
(part); May 13, 2014.)
4.05.070 RENEWAL OF PERMIT. Notwithstanding the requirement for an owner to apply for a new short-term rental permit in the event of any
change described in subsection .020 of Section 4.05.060, above, and occurring during the term of the short-term
rental permit, an owner shall apply for and renew annually at permit issuance anniversary date, indicating at renewal any changes to the information or requirements set forth in Section 4.05.060, above. (Ord. 6299 § 1 (part); May 13, 2014.)
4.05.080 DENIAL OF PERMIT. No application for an initial short-term rental permit or a subsequent renewal thereof shall be denied if the
application meets the conditions of permit issuance pursuant to Section 4.05.100, unless a short-term rental
permit issued to the same owner for the short-term rental unit(s) has been revoked or is in the process of being
revoked pursuant to Section 4.05.130. The denial of a short-term rental permit for any reason may be appealed
in accordance with the provisions of Section 4.05.130. (Ord. 6299 § 1 (part); May 13, 2014.)
4.05.090 FILING FEE.
An application for a short-term rental permit shall be accompanied by a fee established by resolution of the City
Council; provided, however, the fee shall be no greater than necessary to defer the cost incurred by the city in administering the provisions of this chapter. (Ord. 6299 § 1 (part); May 13, 2014.)
4.05.100 CONDITIONS OF PERMIT ISSUANCE AND RENEWAL. .010 All permits and renewals issued pursuant to this chapter are subject to the following standard conditions: .0101 The owner shall ensure that the short-term rental property and short-term rental unit(s) comply with all
applicable codes regarding fire, building and safety, and all other relevant laws, regulations and ordinances.
.0102 The owner shall provide proof sufficient to the Planning Director in consultation with the City
Attorney that short-term rentals are not prohibited under any Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions or any other community standards/guidelines governing the short-term rental unit and short-term rental property enacted by a Homeowners’ or Maintenance Association having jurisdiction over the short-term
rental property.
.0103 The short-term rental property and short-term rental unit(s) must be in compliance with all Health and
Safety Codes of the City prior to permit issuance. The City may conduct an inspection of the short-term rental property and short-term rental unit(s) as the License Collector or Planning Director deem necessary or prudent, including without limitation, based upon any complaints or violations that occur or prior to a renewal of a
permit.
.0104 The owner shall provide a twenty-four (24) hour emergency contact that will be available to respond
to issues at the short-term rental property within forty-five (45) minutes to complaints regarding the condition,
operation or conduct of occupants of a short-term rental unit.
.0105 The short-term rental property must have a minimum of two (2) off-street parking spaces. .0106 The short-term rental property and short-term rental unit(s) must have a visible house number easily
seen from the street, day or night.
.0107 Short-term rental property(ies) and short-term rental unit(s) shall be used only for overnight lodging
accommodations. They may not be used for weddings, parties, bachelor/bachelorette parties, conferences or
similar events. .0108 All advertising for the short-term rental shall include the City issued permit number (REG ID#).
.0109 The primary overnight and daytime occupant of a short-term rental unit must be an adult, eighteen (18)
years of age or older. This adult must provide a telephone number to the owner and shall be accessible to the
owner by telephone at all times.
.0110 Prior to occupancy, the owner shall obtain the name, address, and driver’s license number or passport number of the primary adult occupant of a short-term rental unit. The owner shall require that same adult to sign
a formal acknowledgment that he or she is legally responsible for compliance by all occupants and guests of a
short-term rental unit with the provisions of this chapter. This information shall be readily available upon
request of any police officer or employee of the city authorized to enforce this chapter or State law.
.0111 The owner shall require all occupants to agree to a minimum stay of three (3) consecutive nights. .0112 The owner shall limit overnight occupancy in a short-term rental unit to a specific number of
occupants, with the maximum number of overnight occupants to not exceed two (2) persons within each short-
term rental unit plus an amount that will not exceed three (3) persons per bedroom within each short-term rental
unit. The Planning Director may, when unusual size, interior layout, parking or other physical characteristics are
shown, approve a greater maximum number of overnight occupants as part of a short-term rental permit application or renewal.
.0113 The maximum number of vehicles allowed at a short-term rental property shall be limited to the
number of available off-street parking spaces. The owner must make a sufficient number of off-street parking
spaces accessible to tenants to accommodate the number of vehicles allowed.
.0114 No on-site exterior signs are to be posted advertising a short-term rental at the short-term rental property.
.0115 Trash and refuse shall not be left stored within public view, except in proper containers for the purpose
of collection by the responsible trash hauler and between the hours of 5:00 p.m. the day before and 8:00 p.m.
the day after the scheduled trash collection days. The owner of a short-term rental property shall provide
sufficient trash collection containers and service to meet the demand of the occupants. .0116 Each lease or rental agreement for a short-term rental unit shall include the following terms,
notifications and disclosures, which shall also be posted in a conspicuous location inside each short-term rental
unit:
(a) The maximum number of occupants that are permitted and notification that failure to conform to the
maximum occupancy is a violation of this chapter. (b) The number of off-street parking spaces provided on the short-term rental property and the maximum
number of vehicles that are permitted, along with a summary of all applicable parking rules (e.g., street
sweeping schedules, “permit only” parking restrictions, durational time limit restrictions [such as “2 hour
parking only” or “no parking 2am - 6am”], etc.).
(c) The trash pick-up day(s) and applicable rules and regulations pertaining to leaving or storing trash on the exterior of the short-term rental property.
(d) Notification that the occupant may be cited or fined by the city and/or immediately evicted by the owner
for violating any and all applicable laws, in addition to any other remedies available at law, for creating a
disturbance or for violating other provisions of this chapter.
(e) The name of the owner’s agent or the owner of the short-term rental unit, and a telephone number at which that party may be reached at all times and 9-1-1 Emergency information.
(f) Notification of the City’s Loud and Unreasonable Noise Ordinance (Chapter 6.73 of the code) which
restricts excessive noise between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.
(g) Summary of any applicable Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) and bylaws, including
pool location and hours, of any Homeowners’ or Maintenance Association having jurisdiction over a short-term
rental property. The use of a short-term rental unit shall not violate any applicable conditions, covenants or
other restrictions on the short-term rental property upon which a short-term rental unit is maintained. (h) A copy of this chapter of the code, as the same may be amended from time to time.
.0117 The owner shall ensure that the occupants and guests of a short-term rental unit do not create
unreasonable noise or disturbances, engage in disorderly conduct, or violate provisions of the Anaheim
Municipal Code or any State law pertaining to noise, disorderly conduct, overcrowding, the consumption of
alcohol, or the use of illegal drugs. Owners are expected to take any measures necessary to abate disturbances, including, but not limited to, directing the occupants and guests of a short-term rental unit to cease the
disturbing conduct, calling for law enforcement services or city code enforcement officers, removing the
occupant(s) and/or guests, or taking any other action necessary to immediately abate the disturbance.
.0118 The owner shall, upon notification that occupants and/or guests of a short-term rental unit have created
unreasonable noise or disturbances, engaged in disorderly conduct, or committed violations of this code or State law pertaining to, but not limited to, noise, disorderly conduct, overcrowding, illegal parking of vehicles, or the
accumulation of refuse, promptly respond in a timely and appropriate manner to prevent a recurrence of such
conduct by those occupants and/or guests. Failure of the owner or his or her agent to respond to calls or
complaints regarding the condition, operation, or conduct of occupants and/or guests of a short-term rental unit
in a timely and appropriate manner shall be grounds for imposition of penalties as set forth in this chapter. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is not intended that an owner or his or her agent act as a peace officer or place
himself or herself in an at-risk situation. The owner or his or her agent shall report the name, violation, date, and
time of disturbance of each responsible party involved in three or more disturbances covered by this subsection
to the Planning Director.
.020 The Planning Director shall have the authority at any time to impose additional standard conditions, applicable to all short-term rental units, as necessary, to achieve the objectives of this chapter. A list of all such
additional standard conditions shall be maintained and on file in the office of the Planning Director.
.030 The Planning Director shall have the authority to impose additional conditions on any short-term rental
permit in the event of any violation of the conditions to the permit or the provisions of this chapter subject to
compliance with the procedures specified in Section 4.05.120. .040 The Planning Director is authorized to modify the standard conditions upon request of an owner or his or
her agent based on site-specific circumstances for the purpose of allowing reasonable accommodation of a
short-term rental unit. All requests must be in writing and shall identify how the strict application of one or
more of the standard conditions create an actual and unreasonable hardship to a property such that, if the
requirement is not modified, reasonable use of the property for a short-term rental would not be allowed. Any hardships identified must relate to physical constraints to the subject site and shall not be self-induced or
economic. Any modifications of the standard conditions shall not further exacerbate an already existing
problem. (Ord. 6299 § 1 (part); May 13, 2014.)
4.05.110 AUDIT. Each owner and agent or representative of any owner shall provide access to each short-term rental unit and any
records related to the use and occupancy of the short-term rental unit to the Planning Director at any time during
normal business hours, for the purpose of inspection or audit to determine that the objectives and conditions of this chapter are being fulfilled. (Ord. 6299 § 1 (part); May 13, 2014.)
4.05.120 VIOLATIONS/PENALTIES.
.010 Violations. The following conduct shall constitute a violation for which penalties specified in subsection .020 may be imposed or the permit suspended or revoked:
.0101 The owner has failed to comply with the standard conditions specified in subsection .010 of
Section 4.05.100, above;
.0102 The owner has failed to comply with the additional standard conditions (if any) imposed by the
Planning Director pursuant to the provisions of subsections .020 and/or .030 of Section 4.05.100, above;
.0103 The owner has willfully violated the provisions of this chapter;
.0104 The owner or its agent advertises an unpermitted short-term rental unit. For purposes of this
subsection, advertising includes announcing or portraying in any medium, including electronic medium, that a
dwelling is available or can be made available for occupancy by a person, as that term is used in this chapter. .020 Penalties. Violations specified in subsection .010 of this Section 4.05.120 shall be punishable pursuant to
the civil citation provisions of Chapter 1.20 of this code, except that:
(a) the penalty for a first violation within any twelve (12) month period shall range from a notice of violation
to a fine not to exceed two hundred dollars ($200);
(b) the penalty for a second violation within any twelve (12) month period shall range from a fine not to exceed four hundred dollars ($400) to suspension or revocation of the short-term rental permit pursuant to
Section 4.05.130; and
(c) the penalty for a third violation within any twelve (12) month period shall be one thousand dollars
($1,000) and the short-term rental permit may be suspended or revoked pursuant to Section 4.05.130.
.030 Notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter 1.20, any notice of violation issued for violations specified in this section may provide for a reasonable compliance date or time of less than fifteen (15) calendar days but at
least thirty minutes from the date or the time the notice of violation is given if, due to the nature of the violation,
a shorter compliance period is necessary or appropriate, as determined in the reasonable judgment of the city
official issuing the notice.
.040 The remedies provided for in this section are in addition to, and not in lieu of, all other legal remedies, criminal or civil, which may be pursued by the city to address any violation of this code or other public nuisance. (Ord. 6299 § 1 (part); May 13, 2014.)
4.05.130 PROCEDURE FOR IMPOSITION OF SUSPENSION AND/OR REVOCATION OF SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT. The Planning Director shall have the right to suspend or revoke a short-term rental permit for any violation of
federal, state or local law. The Planning Director, or his/her authorized representative, shall conduct an
investigation whenever he or she has reason to believe that an owner has committed a violation described in Section 4.05.120. Should the investigation reveal substantial evidence to support a finding that a violation occurred, the Planning Director shall issue written notice of intention to impose a suspension and/or revoke the
permit. The written notice shall be served on the owner, shall specify the facts which, in the opinion of the
Planning Director, constitute substantial evidence to establish grounds for imposition of the suspension and/or
revocation, and specify that the permit will be suspended or revoked within thirty (30) days from the date the notice is given unless the owner files with the City Clerk and before the suspension or revocation becomes effective a request for an appeal of the decision. Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Planning Director
under this Chapter 4.05 may appeal the decision in accordance with the appeal and hearing provisions
of Chapter 1.20 of this code. (Ord. 6299 § 1 (part); May 13, 2014.)
4.05.140 EFFECT OF SHORT-TERM RENTALS ORDINANCE ON OTHER PROVISIONS OF
CODE.
The issuance of any short-term rental permit pursuant to this chapter shall not relieve the owner of the
obligation to comply with all other provisions of this code pertaining to the use and occupancy of the short-term rental or the property on which it is located. (Ord. 6299 § 1 (part); May 13, 2014.)
4.05.150 EFFECTIVE DATE FOR COMPLIANCE.
An owner of a short-term rental unit shall apply for a permit pursuant to this chapter by no later than July 31, 2014. (Ord. 6299 § 1 (part); May 13, 2014.)
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
KRAEMER BUILDING
PHOTOS
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139
Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net
City of Anaheim
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
There is no new correspondence
regarding this item.
200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net
ITEM NO. 4
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
City of Anaheim
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DATE: JUNE 15, 2015
SUBJECT: ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2015-00126
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05789 PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2015-00117 VARIANCE NO. 2015-05014 LOCATION: 500 South Anaheim Boulevard (MAKE Building) APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The applicant is Chris Bennett with the Lab
Holdings LLC, and the property owner is the City of Anaheim, as Successor Agency
to the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency.
REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of the following:
1) An amendment to the Zoning Code to permit Alcoholic Beverage
Manufacturing (ABM) facilities in the Neighborhood Commercial district of
the South Anaheim Boulevard Corridor (SABC) Overlay zone, and allow the sale of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption on properties in the SABC Overlay Zone between Broadway and Ellsworth Avenue;
2) A conditional use permit to permit three ABM facilities (brewery, winery
and distillery) with sales and on-premises consumption of alcoholic beverages; an outdoor patio and tasting area; and, a retail store to include the sale of beer and wine for off-premises consumption;
3) An associated Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity related to
the sale of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption in conjunction with the aforementioned uses; and
4) A Variance to allow less parking than required by Code and off-site parking
for the aforementioned uses.
ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2015-00126, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05789,
PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2015-00117, AND VARIANCE NO. 2015-05014 June 15, 2015 Page 2 of 8
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the attached
resolutions, determining that a Negative Declaration is the appropriate environmental documentation for this request under the California Environmental Quality Act, and approving Zoning Code Amendment No. 2015-00126, Conditional Use Permit No. 2015-05789,
Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2015-00117, and Variance No. 2015-05014.
BACKGROUND: This 0.44-acre project site is developed with a 10,590 square foot vacant
commercial building. The building is listed as a “Contributor” to the Anaheim Colony Historic
District. The property is located within the Neighborhood Commercial District of the South
Anaheim Boulevard Corridor (SABC) Overlay zone and the General Plan designates the property
for Low Medium Density Residential land uses. Surrounding land uses include the Packing House food hall to the north across Santa Ana Street, condominiums to the west across Anaheim
Boulevard, condominiums under construction to the south, and an electrical substation to the east,
across a public alley.
PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to open a brewery, winery, distillery, and retail store within
an existing commercial building formerly used as a radiator shop. The following tenants and
alcoholic beverage licenses are being requested:
Tenant
Space
Floor Area (Sq. Ft.) Proposed
Use
Alcoholic Beverage Control
(ABC) License Type
A 2,600 Total 1,850 Manufacturing 750 Tasting Room Brewery 23 (Small Beer Manufacturer)
B 2,100
Total
1,350 Manufacturing
750 Tasting Room
Winery 22
(Wine Blender)
C 2,600
Total
1,850 Manufacturing
750 Tasting Room
Distillery 4
(Distilled Spirits
Manufacturer)
D 450 Retail Store 20
(Off-Sale Beer & Wine)
E 1,550 Hallway and
Tasting Area
----
F 3,200 Outdoor Patio
and Tasting
Area
----
--- 1,290 Restrooms
and Storage
----
Total 13,790
The proposed project includes an outdoor patio and tasting area located at the northeast corner of
the property, adjacent to Santa Ana Street and Anaheim Boulevard. The patio would have a
decomposed granite ground surface, olive trees, a fountain, wood boardwalk, trellis entryway cover, and portable seating and benches. The patio would be enclosed by a 42-inch high wrought iron fence around the perimeter. The building would be accessed through the patio area or from a rear
door opening on the south side of the building. A new trash enclosure, utility room, and two
restrooms are proposed at the southeast corner of the building. The applicant proposes to
ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2015-00126, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05789,
PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2015-00117, AND VARIANCE NO. 2015-05014 June 15, 2015 Page 3 of 8
rehabilitate the building in conformance with the City’s design guidelines for historic buildings.
The rehabilitation includes new horizontal wood siding, asphalt shingle roofing, new windows, wood trellis, and decorative wood doors. No expansion to the building is proposed. An existing service driveway on the south side of the building would provide vehicular access between the
public alley to the east and Anaheim Boulevard to the west. Parking for the proposed use would be
provided within seven off-site public parking lots and structures containing a total of 1,797 spaces.
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS: The applicant’s proposal requires approval of the following:
Zoning Code Amendment: The sale of alcoholic beverages for off-site consumption is a
conditionally permitted use in the SABC Overlay Zone only in conjunction with hotels, grocery
stores greater than 10,000 square feet, or within a brewery or winery. Alcohol sales for off-site consumption is also allowed by CUP on any property within the Neighborhood-Commercial District of the SABC Overlay zone located on the east side of Anaheim Boulevard between
Broadway and Santa Ana Street (this area is also known as the “Packing District” – see Attachment
No. 2).
This amendment would expand the boundaries of the Packing District to include the MAKE Building in order to allow the proposed retail store with off-premises sale of alcoholic beverages.
This amendment would also replace the term “brewery and winery” with ”alcoholic beverage
manufacturing” as a permitted use within the Neighborhood-Commercial District of the SABC
Overlay zone in order to permit the operation of the proposed distillery. The intent of the restriction on the sale of liquor in the SABC Overlay Zone was to prevent the proliferation of liquor stores and convenience markets. The proposed retail store would be incidental to the three ABM’s being
proposed within the MAKE Building, and would complement the restaurants and retail stores in the
Packing District to the north, while encouraging a unique mix of businesses within downtown.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of this code amendment.
Conditional Use Permit: Before the Planning Commission may approve a conditional use permit, it
must make a finding of fact that the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions
exist: 1) That the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is
authorized by this Zoning Code;
2) That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses, or the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located;
3) That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use is adequate to allow
the full development of the proposed use, in a manner not detrimental to either the particular area or health and safety;
ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2015-00126, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05789,
PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2015-00117, AND VARIANCE NO. 2015-05014 June 15, 2015 Page 4 of 8
4) That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue
burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area; and
5) That the granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions
imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the
citizens of the City of Anaheim. The alcoholic beverage manufacturing use, as well as the retail sales of alcoholic beverages,
requires a conditional use permit in this zone, subject to City Council approval of the Zoning Code
amendment described above. Staff believes that the project would complement existing uses within
downtown and would not have a detrimental impact on adjacent land uses or adversely affect development within the area. .To ensure that this project does not cause any disturbances in the neighborhood, staff recommends conditions of approval that restrict the hours of operation to 12:00
a.m. consistent with the Packing House operations, restrict the use of amplified sound, provide on-
site security to the satisfaction of the Police Department, and prohibit a cover charge on the
premises. Staff also recommends that entertainment be prohibited in the outdoor patio area with the exception of four Special Event Permits allowed per year.
In addition, staff believes the project would be consistent with the goals and policies of the General
Plan for the downtown area, including:
• Ensure that Downtown maintains a mix of uses attractive to broad segments of Anaheim’s
population and that stimulate activity during day and evening hours, every day of the week;
• Encourage the preservation and protection of building of historical significance;
• Intensify and revitalize strategically located commercial sites in keeping with the Anaheim
Colony Vision, Principles and Design Guidelines.
Center City Vision: The Community Development Department submitted a memorandum (Attachment No. 6) providing an overview of current activities taking place in the surrounding
neighborhood that support the City’s vision for downtown, as expressed in the Anaheim General
Plan. The City envisions a vibrant downtown area that includes high quality residential
development, thriving commercial activity, a pedestrian-friendly environment, and a unique architectural identity that reflects the historic character of the Anaheim Colony Historic District. The downtown area, which is in the process of being rebranded as “Center City”, is envisioned to
be a recognizable urban city center and a public place that is dense, livable, active, and diverse,
while capitalizing on existing infrastructure, new and existing amenities, historic features, and a
mix of residential/commercial and civic uses. These land use principles are also summarized in the Anaheim General Plan Community Design Element and the Greater Downtown Guide for Development. The MAKE Building would add to the collection of unique attractions that create a
sense of place within Center City. This project would further contribute to the overall downtown
pedestrian experience by providing an attraction that would generate additional positive activity
within the community. The MAKE Building would complement the other food, banquet, and entertainment uses operating within the adjacent Packing House food hall to the north.
ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2015-00126, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05789,
PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2015-00117, AND VARIANCE NO. 2015-05014 June 15, 2015 Page 5 of 8
Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity: State law limits the issuance of new alcoholic
beverage sales licenses when a license is requested for a property located in a police reporting district with a crime rate above the City average or when there is an overconcentration in the number of ABC licenses within a census tract. However, the law also states that such restrictions
can be waived if the local jurisdiction makes a determination that the proposed outlet would serve
"public convenience or necessity." A Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity is
required in this case because approval of this request will result in an over-concentration of off-premises alcohol sales licenses within this census tract and because this property is located in a police reporting district with a crime rate above the City average.
The California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control bases the number of permitted alcohol
licenses within a Census Tract on its total population. The subject site is located within Census Tract No. 874.01, which has a population of 3,954. The boundaries of this Census Tract are Santa Ana Street to the north, the I-5 Freeway to the west, South Street to the south, and the railroad
tracks approximately ½ mile to the east. Based on this population, four on-sale alcohol licenses are
allowed within this Census tract. There is presently one license in the tract and the additional three
on-sale licenses would increase the number of licenses to four. There are two off-sale alcohol licenses allowed within this tract. There are presently two licenses in the tract and the additional off-sale license represents the third license. The property is located in Police Reporting District No.
1725 which has a crime rate that is 240 percent above the City’s average crime rate. The crime rate
within a one quarter mile radius of this site is 236 percent above the citywide average based upon
calls for service. Staff believes that the sales of alcoholic beverages for off-site consumption within the MAKE Building would complement the restaurants in the adjacent Packing District and would serve the public convenience by providing an opportunity to purchase products for off-site
consumption. Sales of alcoholic beverages for off-site consumption would be incidental to the
three ABM’s proposed within the building. Staff does not believe that the proposed project will
have a significant impact on crime in the vicinity or significantly increase calls for service. The Packing House operator currently provides four on-site security officers during the peak weeknight and weekend hours and these same officers would also patrol the MAKE Building site. A condition
of approval requires a security program be reviewed and approved by the Police Department.
Lastly, employees will be required to obtain LEAD (Licensee Education on Alcohol and Drugs
Program) Training from the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. Parking Variance: Parking variances may be granted upon a finding by the Planning Commission or
City Council that the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions exist:
1) That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not cause fewer off-street parking spaces to be provided for the proposed use than the number of such spaces necessary to accommodate all vehicles attributable
to such use under the normal and reasonably foreseeable conditions of
operation of such use;
2) That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon the public streets in
the immediate vicinity of the proposed use;
ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2015-00126, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05789,
PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2015-00117, AND VARIANCE NO. 2015-05014 June 15, 2015 Page 6 of 8
3) That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase
the demand and competition for parking spaces upon adjacent private property in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use;
4) That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase
traffic congestion within the off-street parking areas or lots provided for the
proposed use; and 5) That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not impede
vehicular ingress to or egress from adjacent properties upon the public
streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use.
The Zoning Code requires 131 spaces for the MAKE Building and no on-site spaces are proposed; therefore, a parking variance to permit off-site parking is being requested. Off-site
parking will be provided within seven parking lots and structures to accommodate the MAKE
Building. A Parking Management Plan (Attachment No. 7) was prepared by the City’s traffic
and parking consultant, LSA Associates, Inc., to justify the parking variance. The study contains the following analysis:
• Parking Supply: A total of 1,797 off-street spaces are available within seven public lots in
the downtown area. These spaces are provided in three public parking structures and four City-owned parking lots. These parking facilities are shared between various uses in the downtown, including City Hall, various office buildings, an ice rink facility, and retail
stores on Center Street Promenade.
• Center City Parking Survey: To determine the adequacy of Center City’s shared parking “pool”, a survey of the existing parking supply and demand was conducted. The survey concluded that 736 of the 1,797 available parking spaces were utilized within Center City
on Saturday, April 4, 2015 from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. Saturday was chosen as the
survey day because that day of the week has been observed to be the busiest for visitors to
Center City. Based upon this survey, 41 percent of the 1,797 parking spaces were occupied, resulting in 59 percent of the total parking spaces being available.
• Parking Demand: The overall parking demand for uses within Center City that utilize the
parking “pool” of 1,797 parking spaces, including a demand of 131 additional spaces for the Make Building, is expected to be 867 spaces during peak hours for the Packing District. Some Make Building visitors will also be visitors of the Packing District, so the actual total
parking demand may be less due to this internal capture rate.
• Walking Time: Adequate parking would be provided within seven public parking lots and structures located within a reasonable walkable distance from the proposed MAKE
Building. Walking times to these lots were measured and found to average between 5
minutes, 20 seconds, and 8 minutes, 27 seconds, depending on wait times at pedestrian
signals.
ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2015-00126, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05789,
PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2015-00117, AND VARIANCE NO. 2015-05014 June 15, 2015 Page 7 of 8
• Trolley Service: A new trolley service, owned and operate by the applicant, is proposed to transport visitors from Lots 5 and 6 on Center Street to the Packing District and MAKE
Building. The trolley route would begin at the Packing House, then proceed north on
Anaheim Boulevard, west on Center Street Promenade, turn around at the traffic circle in
front of Anaheim Ice Rinks, and return back to the Packing House. The trolley stop would
be located approximately 350 feet from the MAKE Building entrance, which would require less than two minutes walking. The trolley service is expected to begin operation this
summer, prior to the opening of the MAKE Building.
• Wayfinding Sign Program: The City will be implementing a comprehensive wayfinding sign program for Center City. The wayfinding program will include uniform, easy to read, strategically placed directional signs directing patrons of the Packing House and MAKE
Building, as well as other destinations, to available public parking structures in Center City.
The City and the applicant also propose to utilize various websites and social media to
direct visitor traffic to these public structures. Staff believes that adequate parking is provided within the public parking structures in Center
City to accommodate the additional 131 spaces required for the MAKE Building. The maximum
anticipated demand during weekend peak hours of 863 spaces would be less than 50% of the
1,797 available parking spaces in Center City. A comprehensive wayfinding sign program will be implemented by the City to ensure that visitors can easily find available parking spaces. In addition, a free trolley shuttle service will be operated between parking structures on Center
Street and the Packing District and MAKE Building. Based upon these findings and proposed
operational improvements, staff recommends approval of the parking variance.
Neighborhood Correspondence: Staff received comments from a neighbor of the project (Attachment No. 8). The neighbor expressed concerns regarding the increased housing density
in the downtown, the safety of senior citizens in the area, lack of parking around the Packing
House, potential traffic hazards in the neighborhood, and a concentration of alcohol licenses and
its effect on the neighborhood. The comments also include several recommendations, including installation of wayfinding signs, providing a shuttle service to parking structures, reducing traffic
speeds in the area, installing a left hand turn signals at Santa Ana Street and Anaheim Boulevard,
and providing more Police and security patrols in the area. Staff’s response to each of these
recommendations is provided below:
• Wayfinding Signs: As previously indicated, the City plans to implement a comprehensive
wayfinding sign program for Center City prior to the MAKE Building opening. The City
and the Packing District owner/operator will also utilize various websites and social media
to direct visitor traffic to public parking structures.
• Shuttle Service: The MAKE Building operator plans to operate a free shuttle within Center
City to make parking in underutilized parking facilities more convenient for customers.
ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2015-00126, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05789,
PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2015-00117, AND VARIANCE NO. 2015-05014 June 15, 2015 Page 8 of 8
• Traffic Speeds: Speed limits on streets in the vicinity of the project are currently being re-
evaluated at part of a Citywide Speed Survey. Posted speed limits within the area may be modified, where justifiable, as a result of this survey.
• Turn Signals: Although a left turn signal on Santa Ana Street is not warranted at this time,
the City will assess the need for left-turn phasing following the opening of the project and implementation of the Parking Management Plan, including installation of the Wayfinding Sign Program.
• Police Enforcement and Security: Security services for the project will be provided by a private security company, in conjunction with security currently provided at the Packing House. A condition of approval has been included in the draft resolution requiring a
comprehensive Security Plan be submitted for review and approval by the Police
Department.
Staff has carefully considered the issues and recommendations raised in the correspondence and believes that the proposed project will not have an adverse impact on the surrounding community,
with the proposed operational improvements to facilitate improved parking in the area, and
conditions of approval that ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses.
CONCLUSION: Staff believes that the Planning Commission can make the required findings to approve this request. The requested sale of alcoholic beverages for on and off-sale consumption
would complement the other food, banquet, and entertainment uses operating within the adjacent
Packing District. In addition, there is adequate parking to accommodate the proposed use subject
to the implementation of a proposed trolley and wayfinding sign program to direct visitor traffic to City-owned parking structures. Therefore, staff recommends approval of this request.
Prepared by, Submitted by,
David See Jonathan E. Borrego
Senior Planner Planning Services Manager
Attachments: 1. Draft Ordinance 2. Packing District map
3. Draft Conditional Use Permit and Variance Resolution
4. Draft Public Convenience or Necessity Resolution
5. Applicant’s Letter of Request 6. Community Development Memorandum, including a Draft Wayfinding Signage Program 7. Parking Management Plan
8. Neighborhood Correspondence
9. Police Department Memorandum
10. Photographs 11. Plans
RM-4 (SABC)DUPLEX
ICONDOMINIUMS/TOWNHOUSES
I (SABC)AUTOREPAIR
RM-4 (SABC)vacant
I (SABC)SUBSTATION
I (SABC)vacant
RM-3VACANT
I (SABC)PACKING HOUSE
I (S A B C )
I N D U S T R I A L
I (SABC)INDUSTRIAL
R S -3
S I N G L E F A M I LY R E S I D E N C E
I (SABC)INDUSTRIAL
I (SABC)INDUSTRIAL
I
I N D U S T R I A L
I (SABC)INDUSTRIAL
I (SABC)AUTO REPAIR/SERVICE
RM-4 (SABC)CONDOMINIUMS/TOWNHOUSES
I (SABC)CONDOMINIUMS/TOWNHOUSES
I
S
I
N
G
L
E
F
A
M
I
L
Y
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
I
S
I
N
G
L
E
F
A
M
I
L
Y
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
I
S I N G L E F A M I L Y
R E S I D E N C E R
S
-
2
(
S
A
B
C
)
S
I
N
G
L
E
F
A
M
I
L
Y
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
R S -2 S F R RS-2SFR
RS-2DUPLEX RS-2DUPLEX
RS-2 SFR
I (SABC)FARMERS PARK I (SABC)PARKING
R M -4 (S A B C )
R E T A I L
R M -4 (S A B C )
V A C A N T
C-G (SABC)RETAIL
C-G (SABC)RETAIL
C-G (SABC)RETAIL
R
M
-
3
(
S
A
B
C
)
S
F
R
R
M
-
3
(
S
A
B
C
)
D
U
P
L
E
X
R
M
-
3
(
S
A
B
C
)
S
F
R
R
M
-
3
(
S
A
B
C
)
D
U
P
L
E
X
RS-3SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
RS-3SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
IRESTAURANTS
I (MU)APARTMENTS
RM-4 (SABC)APARTMENTS16 DU
R M -4 (S A B C )
D U P L E X
RM-4 (SABC)APTS9 DU
RM-4 (SABC)7 DU
RM-4 (SABC)APTS12 DU
RM-4 (SABC)SFR
RM-4 (SABC)APTS
S
L
A
N
D
M
A
R
K
L
N
E S A N T A A N A S T
W S A N T A A N A S T
S
Z
E
Y
N
S
T
E E L L S W O R T H A V E
S
C
L
A
U
D
I
N
A
S
T
S
P
H
I
L
A
D
E
L
P
H
I
A
S
T
W E L M S T
S
A
N
A
H
E
I
M
B
L
V
D
S
.
E
A
S
T
S
T
E . L IN C O L N AV E
W. LI N C O L N A V E
W. BR O A DW A Y
E. BR O A DW A Y
S . W A L N U T S T
N
.
H
A
R
B
O
R
B
L
V
D
S. M
A
N
C
H
E
STE
R AV
E
S
.
H
A
R
B
O
R
B
L
V
D
S
.
A
N
A
H
E
I
M
B
L
V
D
E . B R O A D WAY
500 South Anaheim Boulevard
DEV No. 2015-00029
Subject Property APN: 251-084-08
°0 50 100
Feet
Aerial Photo:May 2014
S
L
A
N
D
M
A
R
K
L
N
E S A N T A A N A S T
W S A N T A A N A S T
S
Z
E
Y
N
S
T
E E L L S W O R T H A V E
S
C
L
A
U
D
I
N
A
S
T
S
P
H
I
L
A
D
E
L
P
H
I
A
S
T
W E L M S T
S
A
N
A
H
E
I
M
B
L
V
D
S
.
E
A
S
T
S
T
E . L IN C O L N AV E
W. LI N C O L N A V E
W. BR O A DW A Y
E. BR O A DW A Y
S . W A L N U T S T
N
.
H
A
R
B
O
R
B
L
V
D
S. M
A
N
C
H
E
STE
R AV
E
S
.
H
A
R
B
O
R
B
L
V
D
S
.
A
N
A
H
E
I
M
B
L
V
D
E . B R O A D WAY
500 South Anaheim Boulevard
DEV No. 2015-00029
Subject Property APN: 251-084-08
°0 50 100
Feet
Aerial Photo:May 2014
REDLINED TO SHOW REVISIONS TO CURRENT
MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING
SECTIONS 18.24.030 (GENERAL PROVISIONS) AND 18.24.070 (NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AND NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL-MIXED DISTRICT) OF
CHAPTER 18.24 (SOUTH ANAHEIM BOULEVARD
CORRIDOR (SABC) OVERLAY ZONE) OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE BASED UPON THE FINDING AND DETERMINATION THAT THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS ORDINANCE IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) CEQA
PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 15060(C)(2) AND 15060(C)(3) OF
THE STATE CEQA GUIDELINES AND IS NOT A "PROJECT", AS DEFINED IN SECTION 15378 OF THE STATE CEQA GUIDELINES.
WHEREAS, pursuant to the City’s police power, as granted broadly under Article XI, Section 7 of the California Constitution, the City Council of the City of Anaheim ("City Council") has the authority to enact and enforce ordinances and regulations for the public peace,
morals and welfare of the City and its residents; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that this ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; herein referred to as “CEQA”), pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3)
of the State of California Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality
Act (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3; herein referred to as the "CEQA
Guidelines"), because it will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and is not a project as defined in Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the City Council determines that this ordinance is a valid exercise of the
local police power and in accord with the public purposes and provisions of applicable State and local laws and requirements.
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DOES
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.
Section 18.24.030 (General Provisions) of Chapter 18.24 (South Anaheim Boulevard
Corridor (SABC) Overlay Zone) of the Anaheim Municipal Code be, and the same is hereby,
amended to read in full as follows:
18.24.030 GENERAL PROVISIONS.
.010 Applicable Regulations. Unless otherwise set forth in this chapter, the
permitted, accessory, and conditionally permitted uses in the (SABC) Overlay
Zone shall be those permitted by the underlying zone. The regulations and development standards that apply to the underlying zone of property in the
(SABC) Overlay Zone shall remain the same, except as specified in this
chapter. The provisions of this chapter shall apply in addition to, and where
inconsistent with, shall supersede the corresponding regulations of the underlying
zones.
.020 Exceptions. With the exception of the requirements specified below, the
regulations of this chapter shall not apply to parcels being developed entirely in
compliance with the development standards of the underlying zone, and where an
ordinance has not been adopted to reclassify property into the (SABC) Overlay Zone, provided that:
.0201 All requirements of the underlying zone are being met by the project,
except as otherwise specifically approved in conjunction with a conditional use
permit, variance or administrative adjustment permitted pursuant to Chapter 18.66 (Conditional Use Permits), Chapter 18.74 (Variances), and Chapter 18.62
(Administrative Reviews).
.0202 Off-premise sale of alcohol is prohibited in the (SABC) Overlay Zone
except: (i) as an accessory use to a hotel, (ii) markets or grocery stores having an interior building floor area of greater than ten thousand (10,000) square feet, (iii)
in conjunction with a brewery or wineryalcoholic beverage manufacturing, or (iv)
on I (SABC-Neighborhood Commercial District) (Industrial, South Anaheim
Boulevard Corridor Overlay-Neighborhood Commercial District) zoned
properties located on the east side of Anaheim Boulevard between Broadway and Santa Ana StreetEllsworth Avenue.
.0203 Except as provided in subsection 18.40.060.080 (Automatic
Exemptions) of Chapter 18.40 (General Development Standards), where a
building permit is sought for any development project in the (SABC) Overlay Zone, landscaping shown on the South Anaheim Boulevard Master Plan of Landscaping (the “Master Plan”), as approved by the Anaheim Redevelopment
Agency on August 29, 2000, shall be planted in the size and at the spacing
described in the Master Plan. Landscaping plans shall be submitted to the
Planning Director and the Executive Director of Community Development, for a
determination that the proposed plan is consistent with the Master Plan. The Planning Commission may grant variances from the requirements of the Master
Plan pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 18.74 (Variances).
.0204 Any signs or billboards installed or erected shall comply with the
provisions of Section 18.24.120 (Sign Standards), except that the following shall be applicable to business signs permitted within commercial or industrial zones:
.01 Properties located south of Ball Road. Freestanding signs up to twenty-
five (25) feet in height, in conformance with Section 18.44.080 (Freestanding and
Monument Signs – General) of Chapter 18.44 (Signs), shall be permitted, subject to the approval of a conditional use permit pursuant to Chapter 18.66 (Conditional
Use Permits).
.02 Properties located north of Ball Road. Signage shall be limited to
freestanding or monument type signs in conformance with Section 18.44.100 (Freeway-Oriented On-Site Signs) of Chapter 18.44 (Signs).
.0205 All applications submitted for projects that lie within both the (SABC)
Overlay Zone area and the boundaries of the Commercial/Industrial
Redevelopment Project Area shall be forwarded to the Community Development Department for review. The Executive Director of Community Development
shall review each application, meet and consult with the applicant with respect to
the neighborhood compatibility and design features of the proposed project, and
propose changes where necessary to promote high quality urban design. The
Executive Director of Community Development shall propose, the Planning Commission shall review, and the Redevelopment Agency shall adopt design
guidelines to assist in the review of applications.
.0206 Properties located east of the Santa Ana Freeway (I-5) and south of the
Southern California Edison transmission line right-of-way shall comply with the standards set forth in Section 18.40.050 (Special Area Setbacks) of Chapter 18.40
(General Development Standards).
.0207 Properties within the Anaheim Colony, which is defined as the area
bounded by North Street, East Street, South Street and West Street, shall be subject to The Anaheim Colony Vision, Principles and Design Guidelines.
.030 Legal Nonconforming Uses.
.0301 A legally created use in existence on December 12, 2000, that is prohibited by this chapter, will not be subject to the provisions of
(Nonconformities), provided that such use has been continuously in operation
since December 12, 2000.
.0302 A legally created use in existence on December 12, 2000, that: (i) is prohibited by subsection .0202 above; and (ii) was approved subject to a time
limitation, shall be eligible for reinstatement pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
18.60 (Common Procedures), notwithstanding the requirement in Chapter 18.60
(Common Procedures) that, before a conditional use permit may be reinstated, a
finding must be made that the use is one for which a conditional use permit is authorized.
SECTION 2.
Section 18.24.070 (Neighborhood Commercial District and Neighborhood Commercial-Mixed District) of Chapter 18.24 (South Anaheim Boulevard Corridor (SABC) Overlay Zone) of the Anaheim Municipal Code be, and the same is hereby, amended to read in full as follows:
18.24.070 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AND
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL-MIXED DISTRICT. Within the area designated as a Neighborhood Commercial District or the
Neighborhood Commercial-Mixed District, the provisions of Chapter 18.08
(Commercial Zones) for the Neighborhood Center Commercial ("C-NC") Zone
shall apply, except as otherwise specified. .010 In addition to the uses permitted by the underlying zone or prohibited by
this chapter, the following buildings, structures and uses, either singly or in
combination, are permitted:
.0101 Development of mixed commercial uses with residential units above the first floor on a single site, in conformance with Chapter 18.08 (Commercial
Zones) for the “C-NC” Zone, except as amended by this chapter. For projects
with mixed residential and commercial uses, CC&Rs shall be prepared for each
project. .0102 Development of mixed commercial uses with senior citizen apartments
above the first floor on a single site, in conformance with Chapter 18.08
(Commercial Zones) for the “C-NC” Zone, and Chapter 18.50 (Senior
Citizens Apartment Projects), except as amended by this chapter. .0103 Development of Boulevard Residential uses in conformance with
Section 18.24.060.
.0104 Alcoholic Beverage Manufacturing uses in conformance with Section 18.38.025 (Alcoholic Beverage Manufacturing) on properties located on the east
side of Anaheim Boulevard between Broadway and Ellsworth Avenue whose
underlying zoning is "I" (Industrial).
.020 Development Standards. The provisions of Chapter 18.08 (Commercial Zones) shall apply, with the following exceptions:
.0201 Building Site Requirements for Mixed-Use Developments.
.01 A minimum project site of one (1) net acre is required where mixed commercial/residential uses are proposed.
.02 A minimum lot width of one hundred (100) feet is required where
mixed commercial/residential uses are proposed.
.03 Where above ground residential uses are proposed, no more than thirty percent (30%) of the habitable structure may be used for non-residential uses.
.0202 Structural Height and Area Limitations for Mixed Use Developments.
.01 Structure height is limited to forty (40) feet.
.02 For any portion of a mixed use development located within fifty (50)
feet of a single-family, residentially zoned property, the maximum height shall be
limited to twenty-two (22) feet, with the exception of architectural projections, which may extend up to an additional six (6) feet above this height limit.
.03 Tuck-under and subterranean parking are permitted in conformance
with Chapter 18.42 (Parking and Loading).
.0203 Structural Setback and Yard Requirements for Mixed-Use Developments. All provisions of Chapter 18.08 (Commercial Zones) for the C-
NC Neighborhood Center Commercial Zone shall apply, except for the following:
.01 Structural setback shall not be required along public streets, except along public alleys.
.02 A minimum of two hundred (200) square feet of usable
recreation/leisure space is required for each dwelling unit. Such space may be
satisfied by either private balconies or patios, roof gardens or common recreational/leisure areas, or a combination thereof. Minimum size of a private patio or balcony is fifty (50) square feet, with a minimum dimension of five (5)
feet.
.0204 Design of Off Street Parking and Loading areas for Mixed Use Developments. The design of the parking areas, and of the ingress and egress to the parking areas, shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Services
Manager of the Planning Department and/or his or her designee. The parking
study, or other such study as may be required by the Planning Services Manager
of the Planning Department and/or his or her designee, shall minimally contain
and address the following factors:
.01 The design and location of separate driveway entrances to the
residential and commercial portions of the project;
.02 Proper identification of the separate parking entrances;
.03 Layout and design of the separate parking lots designated for residential and
commercial uses.
.0205 Number of Spaces for Mixed Use Developments. For mixed-use projects, vehicle parking shall be provided as required by Chapter 18.42 (Parking and Loading). Parking
requirements for residential and commercial uses shall be calculated separately and satisfied
independently. Variances to permit deviation from these requirements, in terms of reduction of
required spaces through shared parking, due to the nature of a mixed-use project, may be
considered pursuant to Chapter 18.74 (Variances).
.0206 Sign Regulations for Mixed Use Developments. All provisions of Chapter 18.44
(Signs) shall apply, with the following exceptions:
.01 Freestanding signs shall be prohibited.
.02 Wall signs shall be limited in area to a total of thirty (30) square feet.
.03 Each commercial business shall be limited to one (1) wall sign, with the exception of
corner locations, where one (1) sign per street frontage may be permitted.
SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim hereby declares that should any section,
paragraph, sentence, phrase, term or word of this ordinance be declared for any reason to be invalid, it is the intent of the City Council that it would have adopted all other portions of this
ordinance independent of the elimination herefrom of any such portion as may be declared
invalid. If any section, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is
for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of
the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance, and each section, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase
thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one (or more) section, subdivision, paragraph, sentence,
clause or phrase had been declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 4. CERTIFICATION
The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance and shall cause the same to
be printed once within fifteen (15) days after its adoption in the Anaheim Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Anaheim.
SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE
This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force thirty (30) days from and after its final passage.
THE FOREGOING ORDINANCE was introduced at a regular meeting of the City
Council of the City of Anaheim held on the ____ day of ______________, 2015, and thereafter
passed and adopted at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the ____ day of ______________, 2015, by the following roll call vote: AYES:
NOES: ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CITY OF ANAHEIM
By: _________________________________
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ATTEST:
______________________________________ CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
109946-v1/TJR
COMMERCIALLY-ZONED PROPERTIES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE
OF ANAHEIM BLVD. BETWEEN BROADWAY & ELLSWORTH ST.
(PACKING DISTRICT)
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
[DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 3
- 1 - PC2015-***
RESOLUTION NO. PC2015-***
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05789
AND VARIANCE NO. 2015-05014 AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN
CONNECTION THEREWITH
(DEV2015-00029) (500 SOUTH ANAHEIM BOULEVARD)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim (the "Planning
Commission") did receive a verified petition to approve (i) Conditional Use Permit No. 2015-
05789 to permit a brewery, winery and distillery with on-premises sales and consumption of alcoholic beverages, an outdoor patio and tasting area, and a retail store to include the sale of beer and wine for off-premises consumption, and (ii) Variance No. 2015-05014 to allow fewer
parking spaces than required by the Anaheim Municipal Code (the "Code") and off-site parking
for the aforementioned uses. Conditional Use Permit No. 2015-05789 and Variance No. 2015-
05014 is proposed in conjunction with Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2015-000117 related to the sale of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption in conjunction with the aforementioned uses, and Zoning Code Amendment No. 2015-00126 to
allow Alcoholic Beverage Manufacturing (ABM) facilities and the sale of alcoholic beverages
for off-premises consumption in the Neighborhood Commercial district of the South Anaheim
Boulevard Corridor (SABC) Overlay zone (collectively referred to herein as the "Proposed Project") for premises located at that certain real property at 500 South Anaheim Boulevard, in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, as generally depicted on the map
attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Property"); and
WHEREAS, the Property is approximately 0.44 acres in size and is currently developed with a 10,590 square foot vacant commercial building. The Anaheim General Plan designates the Property for Low Medium Density Residential land uses. The Property is located
in the Neighborhood Commercial District of the South Anaheim Boulevard Corridor (SABC)
Overlay Zone and is subject to the zoning and development standards of the "C-NC"
Neighborhood Center Commercial Zone contained in Chapter 18.08 (Commercial Zones) of the Code; provided, however, that the requirements of the SABC Overlay Zone, as set forth in Chapter 18.24 (South Anaheim Boulevard Corridor (SABC) Overlay Zone shall apply to the
property and supersede any inconsistent regulations of the "C-NC" Neighborhood Center
Commercial Zone; and
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was scheduled before the Planning Commission at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on June 15, 2015 at 5:00 p.m. to hear
and consider evidence and testimony for and against the Proposed Project and to investigate and
make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; herein referred to as
“CEQA”), the State of California Guidelines for the Implementation of the California
Environmental Quality Act (commencing with Section 15000 of Title 14 of the California Code
of Regulations; herein referred to as the "CEQA Guidelines"), and the City's Local CEQA Procedure Manual, the City is the "lead agency" for the preparation and consideration of environmental documents for the Proposed Project; and
- 2 - PC2015-***
WHEREAS, following preliminary review, the City prepared an Initial Study to determine if the Proposed Project may have a significant effect on the environment, which Initial
Study shows that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the City,
that the Proposed Project may have a significant effect on the environment; and
WHEREAS, a draft Negative Declaration was prepared in accordance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and the City's Local CEQA Procedure Manual to evaluate the physical
environmental impacts of the Proposed Project. The Negative Declaration was circulated was
posted for a 20-day public/responsible agency review on May 21, 2015 and was also made
available for review on the City's website at www.anaheim.net. A complete copy of the Negative Declaration is on file and can be viewed in the Planning Division of City Hall located on the First Floor at 200 S. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, California. Copies of said document are
also available for purchase; and
WHEREAS, the City gave notice of its intent to adopt the Negative Declaration to (a) the public pursuant to Section 15072(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, (b) those individuals and organizations, if any, that previously submitted written requests for notice pursuant to Section
15072(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, (c) responsible and trustee and other agencies with
jurisdiction over resources that will be affected by the Proposed Project pursuant to Section
15073(c) of the CEQA Guidelines, and (d) the Clerk of the County of Orange pursuant to Section 15072(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the City intends and desires to use the Negative Declaration as the
environmental documentation required by CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's
Local CEQA Procedure Manual for the Proposed Project; and WHEREAS, based upon a thorough review of the Proposed Project and the Negative
Declaration and the comments received to date and the responses prepared, staff finds that the
Proposed Project will have a less than significant impact upon the environment with the
implementation of the conditions of approval attached to this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study
made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at
said hearing with respect to the request for Conditional Use Permit No. 2015- 05789, does find
and determine the following: 1. The request for a conditional use permit to permit the Proposed Project is an
allowable use authorized by Subsection .010 of Section 18.36.040 (Alcoholic Beverage
Manufacturing) of the Code, subject to a conditional use permit and the zoning and development
standards of the underlying "C-NC" Neighborhood Center Commercial Zone pursuant to subsection .010 (Primary Uses) of Section 18.08.030 (Uses) of Chapter 18.08 of the Code, and further subject to City Council approval of Zoning Code Amendment No. 2015-000126 to allow
Alcoholic Beverage Manufacturing (ABM) facilities and the sale of alcoholic beverages for off-
premises consumption in the Neighborhood Commercial district of the South Anaheim
Boulevard Corridor (SABC) Overlay zone.
2. The conditional use permit, under the conditions imposed, will not adversely
affect the surrounding land uses and the growth and development of the area because the
Property is developed with a commercial building and there are a sufficient amount of spaces in
the off-site parking lots and structures to accommodate the parking demand for the businesses.
- 3 - PC2015-***
3. The size and shape of the Property is adequate to allow the full operation of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area or to the health, safety and
general welfare.
4. The traffic generated by the use would not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area because all customer and employee traffic and parking will be provided in off-site public parking lots and structures in
the nearby downtown area.
5. The granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 2015-05789 under the conditions imposed will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim and will provide a land use that is compatible with the surrounding area.
WHEREAS, based upon the parking management plan prepared by the City’s traffic
and parking consultant, LSA Associates, to justify the parking variance, the Planning Commission does further find and determine that the request for a variance for less parking than required by the Code and off-site parking should be approved for the following reasons:
SECTION NO. 18.42.040.010 Minimum number of parking spaces.
(131 spaces required; 0 on-site spaces proposed)
1. Based upon a review of the findings of a parking management plan prepared by the City’s parking consultant, the variance, under the conditions imposed, will not cause fewer
off-street parking spaces to be provided for the proposed use than the number of such spaces
necessary to accommodate all vehicles attributable to such use under the normal and reasonably
foreseeable conditions of operation of such use because ample and adequate parking is provided within public parking structures located within a reasonable walkable distance (0.23 to 0.33
mile) from the Proposed Project; and
2. That the variance, under the conditions imposed, will not increase the demand
and competition for parking spaces upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the
proposed use because ample and adequate parking is provided within public parking lots in the downtown area. Moreover, a parking survey determined that less than 40 percent of these spaces
are utilized during the periods when the Proposed Project will experience its highest parking
demand; and
3. That the variance, under the conditions imposed, will not increase the demand
and competition for parking spaces upon adjacent private property in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use because ample and adequate parking is provided within public parking lots in the downtown area within a reasonable walking distance; and
4. That the variance, under the conditions imposed, will not increase traffic
congestion within the off-street parking areas or lots provided for the proposed use because
because ample and adequate parking is provided within public parking lots in the downtown area within a reasonable walking distance; and
5. That the variance, under the conditions imposed, will not impede vehicular
ingress to or egress from adjacent properties upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of
the proposed use because the Packing District will operate a free shuttle within the downtown
area to shorten the walking distance from available parking spaces to the project site.
- 4 - PC2015-***
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determines that the evidence in the record
constitutes substantial evidence to support the actions taken and the findings made in this
Resolution, that the facts stated in this Resolution are supported by substantial evidence in the
record, including testimony received at the public hearing, the staff presentations, the staff report and all materials in the project files. There is no substantial evidence, nor are there other facts, that detract from the findings made in this Resolution. The Planning Commission expressly
declares that it considered all evidence presented and reached these findings after due
consideration of all evidence presented to it.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2015-05789 and Variance No. 2015-05014, contingent
upon and subject to (1) the adoption by the City Council of Zoning Code Amendment No. 2014-
00126, an ordinance that will allow Alcoholic Beverage Manufacturing facilities and the sale of
alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption in the Neighborhood Commercial district of the South Anaheim Boulevard Corridor Overlay zone; and (2) approval of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2015-00117 related to the sale of alcoholic beverages for off-premises
consumption in conjunction with the aforementioned uses, both of which entitlements are now
pending, and further contingent upon and subject to the conditions of approval set forth in
Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the Property under Conditional Use Permit No.
2015-05789 and Variance No. 2015-05014 in order to preserve the health, safety and general
welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Extensions for further time to complete
conditions of approval may be granted in accordance with Section 18.60.170 of the Code.
Timing for compliance with conditions of approval may be amended by the Planning Director upon a showing of good cause provided (i) equivalent timing is established that satisfies the
original intent and purpose of the condition, (ii) the modification complies with the Code, and
(iii) the applicant has demonstrated significant progress toward establishment of the use or
approved development.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any amendment, modification or revocation of this permit may be processed in accordance with Chapters 18.60.190 (Amendment to Permit
Approval) and 18.60.200 (City-Initiated Revocation or Modification of Permits) of the Code.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby find and
determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance
with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part
thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent
jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Code and any other applicable
City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to
compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or
requirement.
- 5 - PC2015-***
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission
meeting of June 15, 2015. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60 (Procedures) of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal.
CHAIRMAN, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ATTEST:
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Eleanor Morris, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Anaheim held on June 15, 2015 by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 15th day of June, 2015.
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
- 6 - PC2015-***
- 7 - PC2015-***
EXHIBIT “B” CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05789 AND VARIANCE NO. 2015-05014 (DEV2015-00029)
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT
1 The location(s) for future above-ground utility devices including,
but not limited to, electrical transformers, water backflow devices,
gas, communications and cable devices, etc., shall be shown on the plans submitted for building permits. Said plans shall also identify the specific screening treatment of each device (i.e., landscape
screening, color of walls, materials, identifiers, access points, etc.)
and shall be subject to the review and approval of the appropriate
City departments.
Planning Department,
Code Enforcement
Division
2 The developer shall submit street improvement plans for work within
public right-of-way to the Public Works Department, Development Services Division and a bond shall be posted to guarantee the
construction of all public works improvements. The improvements
shall be constructed prior to final building and zoning inspections.
Public Works
Department, Development Services
Division
3 The property owner (the City, as the Successor Agency to the
Anaheim Redevelopment Agency), after receiving authority from
the State of California to convey property, shall irrevocably offer to
dedicate to the City of Anaheim an easement of 53 feet in width, and to the edge of the existing building, from the centerline of Anaheim
Boulevard for road, public utilities and other public purposes.
Public Works
Department,
Development Services
Division
PRIOR TO FINAL BUILDING AND ZONING INSPECTIONS
4 An Encroachment License shall be executed by the owner and recorded for any non-standard/private improvements that encroach
over the public right-of-way line.
Public Works Department,
Development Services
Division
OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
5 The availability of parking for this building shall be operated in
accordance with the Parking Management Plan submitted as part of
this application. Any changes to the business operation as described
in that document shall be subject to review and approval by the
Planning Director to determine substantial conformance to ensure compatibility with the surrounding uses.
Planning Department, Planning Services
Division
- 8 - PC2015-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT
6 Security measures shall be provided to the satisfaction of the
Anaheim Police Department and to prevent disturbances to the neighborhood by excessive noise created by patrons entering or leaving the premises.
Police Department
7 The business shall not be operated in such a way as to be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare of the surrounding area. Police Department
8 There shall be no admission fee, cover charge, nor minimum purchase of alcoholic beverages required. Police Department
9 The hours of operation shall be limited to 12:00 a.m. seven days a week. Police Department
10 All persons serving or otherwise dispensing alcoholic beverages shall be 21 years old or older. Police Department
11 Persons serving alcohol shall not consume any alcoholic beverages. Police Department
12 The number of persons shall not exceed the maximum occupancy load as determined by the Anaheim Fire Department. Signs indicating the occupant load shall be posted in a conspicuous place
on an approved sign near the main exit from the room. (Section
25.114(a) Uniform Fire Code).
Police Department
13 Alcoholic beverages shall only be sold and served in distinctive cups
with a logo from the location it has been dispensed from. No other
cups may be used for the dispensing of alcoholic beverages. Said
containers shall be distinct and different than containers of non-alcoholic beverages.
Police Department
14 If there is a gate/door in the perimeter fence for the patio, there shall be a sign stating “No alcohol beyond this point”. The gate shall also
be self-closing.
Police Department
15 There shall be a security guard in the patio area any time patrons are
present.
Police Department
16 Entertainment shall not be allowed in the outdoor patio area.
Outdoor events and/or entertainment, if any, shall be subject to
issuance of a Special Event Permit and all applicable regulations of
the Anaheim Municipal Code.
Police Department
17 A security plan shall be submitted to the Chief of Police or his/her
designee for review and approval prior to operation of the business. The plan shall include the number of security personnel that will be provided, job duties and description, procedures on communication,
Police Department
- 9 - PC2015-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT
ID check, occupancy load and a detailed description of how
problems and problem guests will be handled.
18 The licensee(s) shall not maintain or construct any type of enclosed
room intended for use by patrons or customers for any purpose.
Police Department
19 Signs shall be posted at the entrance to the building stating “No one
under 21 allowed”.
Police Department
20 Petitioner shall police the area under their control in an effort to
prevent the loitering of persons around the premises.
Police Department
GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
21 No unscreened roof-mounted equipment shall be permitted on the
building.
Planning Department,
Code Enforcement
Division
22 Trash storage area(s) shall be refurbished and maintained in
location(s) acceptable to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division, and in accordance with approved plans on file with said Department. Said storage area(s) shall be designed,
located and screened so as not to be readily identifiable from
adjacent streets or highways. The walls of the storage area(s) shall
be protected from graffiti opportunities by the use of plants such as minimum one (1) gallon sized clinging vines planted on maximum three (3) foot centers, or tall shrubbery.
Public Works, Streets
and Sanitation Division
23 Adequate lighting of passageways, recesses, and grounds contiguous to buildings shall be provided with lighting of sufficient wattage to
provide adequate illumination to make clearly visible the presence of
any person on or about the premises during the hours of darkness
and provide a safe, secure environment for all person, property, and
vehicles on-site.
Police Department, Planning & Research
Unit
24 Any graffiti painted or marked upon the premises or on any adjacent area under the control of the property owner shall be removed or painted over within 24 hours of being applied.
Planning Department, Code Enforcement Division
25 The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its officials, officers, employees and agents (collectively referred
to individually and collectively as “Indemnitees”) from any and all
claims, actions or proceedings brought against Indemnitees to
attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the decision of the Indemnitees concerning this permit or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done, or made prior to the decision, or to
determine the reasonableness, legality or validity of any condition
attached thereto. The Applicant’s indemnification is intended to
Planning Department, Planning Services
Division
- 10 - PC2015-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT
include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded
against or incurred by Indemnitees and costs of suit, claim or litigation, including without limitation attorneys’ fees and other costs, liabilities and expenses incurred by Indemnitees in connection
with such proceeding.
26 The applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the
processing of this discretionary case application within 30 days of the
issuance of the final invoice or prior to the issuance of building
permits for this project, whichever occurs first. Failure to pay all
charges shall result in delays in the issuance of required permits or may result in the revocation of the approval of this application.
Planning Department,
Planning Services
Division
27 The subject Property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by
the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning
Department, and as conditioned herein.
Planning Department, Planning Services
Division
[DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 4
- 1 - PC2015-***
RESOLUTION NO. PC2015-***
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DETERMINING PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY
NO. 2015-00117 TO PERMIT ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGE CONTROL LICENSES AND MAKING
CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH (DEV2015-00029) (500 SOUTH ANAHEIM BOULEVARD)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim (the "Planning
Commission") did receive a verified petition to approve a determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2015-000117 related to the sale of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption in conjunction with a brewery, winery, and distillery and associated tasting areas.
Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2015-000117 is proposed in conjunction with Conditional
Use Permit No. 2015-05789 to permit a brewery, winery and distillery with on-premises sales
and consumption of alcoholic beverages, an outdoor patio and tasting area, and a retail store to include the sale of beer and wine for off-premises consumption, Variance No. 2015-05014 to
allow fewer parking spaces than required by the Anaheim Municipal Code (the "Code") and off-
site parking for the aforementioned uses, and Zoning Code Amendment No. 2015-00126 to
allow Alcoholic Beverage Manufacturing (ABM) facilities and the sale of alcoholic beverages
for off-premises consumption in the Neighborhood Commercial district of the South Anaheim Boulevard Corridor (SABC) Overlay zone (collectively referred to herein as the "Proposed
Project") for premises located at that certain real property at 500 South Anaheim Boulevard, in
the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, as generally depicted on the map
attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Property"); and
WHEREAS, the Property is approximately 0.44 acres in size and is currently
developed with a 10,590 square foot vacant commercial building. The Anaheim General Plan
designates the Property for Low Medium Density Residential land uses. The Property is located
in the Neighborhood Commercial District of the South Anaheim Boulevard Corridor (SABC)
Overlay Zone and is subject to the zoning and development standards of the "C-NC" Neighborhood Center Commercial Zone contained in Chapter 18.08 (Commercial Zones) of the
Code; provided, however, that the requirements of the SABC Overlay Zone, as set forth in
Chapter 18.24 (South Anaheim Boulevard Corridor (SABC) Overlay Zone shall apply to the
property and supersede any inconsistent regulations of the "C-NC" Neighborhood Center
Commercial Zone; and
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was scheduled before the Planning
Commission at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on June 15, 2015 at 5:00 p.m. to hear
and consider evidence and testimony for and against the Proposed Project and to investigate and
make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and
- 2 - PC2015-***
WHEREAS, pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; herein referred to as “CEQA”), the State of California Guidelines for the Implementation of the California
Environmental Quality Act (commencing with Section 15000 of Title 14 of the California Code
of Regulations; herein referred to as the "CEQA Guidelines"), and the City's Local CEQA
Procedure Manual, the City is the "lead agency" for the preparation and consideration of
environmental documents for the Proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, following preliminary review, the City prepared an Initial Study to
determine if the Proposed Project may have a significant effect on the environment, which Initial
Study shows that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the City,
that the Proposed Project may have a significant effect on the environment; and
WHEREAS, a draft Negative Declaration was prepared in accordance with CEQA,
the CEQA Guidelines and the City's Local CEQA Procedure Manual to evaluate the physical
environmental impacts of the Proposed Project. The Negative Declaration was circulated was
posted for a 20-day public/responsible agency review on May 21, 2015 and was also made available for review on the City's website at www.anaheim.net. A complete copy of the
Negative Declaration is on file and can be viewed in the Planning Division of the City located on
the First Floor at 200 S. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, California. Copies of said document are also
available for purchase; and
WHEREAS, the City gave notice of its intent to adopt the Negative Declaration to (a)
the public pursuant to Section 15072(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, (b) those individuals and
organizations, if any, that previously submitted written requests for notice pursuant to Section
15072(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, (c) responsible and trustee and other agencies with
jurisdiction over resources that will be affected by the Proposed Project pursuant to Section 15073(c) of the CEQA Guidelines, and (d) the Clerk of the County of Orange pursuant to
Section 15072(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the City intends and desires to use the Negative Declaration as the
environmental documentation required by CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's Local CEQA Procedure Manual for the Proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, based upon a thorough review of the Proposed Project and the Negative
Declaration and the comments received to date and the responses prepared, staff finds that the
Proposed Project will have a less than significant impact upon the environment with the implementation of the conditions of approval attached to this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study
made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at
said hearing with respect to the request for Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2015-00117, does find and determine the following facts:
1. On July 11, 1995, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 95R-134 establishing
procedures and delegating certain responsibilities to the Planning Commission relating to the
determination of "Public Convenience or Necessity" on those certain applications requiring that
- 3 - PC2015-***
such determination be made by the local governing body pursuant to applicable provisions of the
Business and Professions Code, and prior to the issuance of a license by ABC.
2. Section 23958 of the Business and Professions Code provides that the ABC shall deny an application for a license if issuance of that license would tend to create a law enforcement problem, or if issuance would result in or add to an "undue concentration" of
licenses, except when an applicant has demonstrated that "public convenience or necessity"
would be served by the issuance of a license. For purposes of Section 23958, "undue
concentration" means the case in which the premises are located in an area where any of the following conditions exist:
(a) The premises are located in a crime reporting district that has a 240%
greater number of "reported crimes" (as defined in Section 23958.4)
than the average number of reported crimes as determined from all
crime reporting districts within the City of Anaheim.
(b) As to on-sale retail license applications, the ratio of on-sale retail
licenses to population in the census tract or census division in which the
premises are located does not exceed the ratio of on-sale retail licenses
to population in the county.
(c) As to off-sale retail license applications, the ratio of off-sale retail licenses to population in the census tract or census division in which the
premises are located does not exceed the ratio of off-sale retail licenses
to population in the county.
3. Notwithstanding the existence of the above-referenced conditions, ABC may
issue a license if the Planning Commission determines that the "public convenience or necessity" would be served by the issuance.
4. Resolution No. 95R-134 authorizes the City of Anaheim Police Department to
make recommendations related to "public convenience or necessity" determinations; and, when
the sale of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption is permitted by the Code, said
recommendations shall take the form of conditions of approval to be imposed on the determination in order to ensure that the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages does not
adversely affect any adjoining land use or the growth and development of the surrounding area.
5. The Property is located within Census Tract 874.01 with a population of 3,954
that allows for two (2) off-sale ABC licenses. There are presently two (2) off-sale ABC licenses
in the tract. The Property is located in Police Reporting District No. 1725, which has a crime rate that is 240% above the City-wide average; however, the Police Department evaluates these
requests based on the crime rate within a one-quarter mile radius of the premises for the subject
site. The crime rate within ¼ mile of this Property is 236% above the City-wide average based
upon calls for service. Since a third off-sale license would result in an overconcentration in the
number of off-sale ABC licenses within this census tract, and since the crime rate is above the City-wide average, a determination of "public convenience or necessity" is required to be made
for this request.
- 4 - PC2015-***
6. A determination of "public convenience or necessity" can be made based on the
finding that the requested license, under the conditions imposed, will not be detrimental to the
health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim because the sale of beer and wine at this location will complement the restaurants in the adjacent Packing District and will also serve the
newly constructed residential developments, retail businesses, and pedestrian-oriented
environment within the downtown area.
7. The sale of beer and wine is ancillary to the alcoholic beverage manufacturing
businesses and would serve as an added convenience to residents and visitors to the area who choose to dine in the adjacent Packing District area.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby
determine that the public convenience or necessity will be served by the issuance of a license for
the sale of beer and wine for off-premises consumption at this location and, accordingly, hereby
approves Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2015-00117, contingent upon and subject to (1) the adoption by the City Council of Zoning Code Amendment No. 2014-00126, an ordinance
that will allow Alcoholic Beverage Manufacturing facilities and the sale of alcoholic beverages
for off-premises consumption in the Neighborhood Commercial district of the South Anaheim
Boulevard Corridor Overlay zone; (2) approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2015-05789 to
permit a brewery, winery and distillery with on-premises sales and consumption of alcoholic beverages, an outdoor patio and tasting area, and a retail store to include the sale of beer and
wine for off-premises consumption; and (3) Variance No. 2015-05014 to allow fewer parking
spaces than required by the Anaheim Municipal Code in conjunction with the aforementioned
uses, both of which entitlements are now pending, and further contingent upon subject to the
conditions of approval described in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the
Property in order to preserve the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of
Anaheim. Extensions for further time to complete conditions of approval may be granted in
accordance with Section 18.60.170 of the Code. Timing for compliance with conditions of
approval may be amended by the Planning Director upon a showing of good cause provided (i) equivalent timing is established that satisfies the original intent and purpose of the condition(s),
(ii) the modification complies with the Code, and (iii) the applicant has demonstrated significant
progress toward establishment of the use or approved development.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby find and
determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part
thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent
jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and
void.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Code and any other applicable
City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to
compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or
requirement.
- 5 - PC2015-***
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that any amendment, modification or revocation of this
permit may be processed in accordance with Chapters 18.60.190 (Amendment to Permit Approval) and 18.60.200 (City-Initiated Revocation or Modification of Permits) of the Code.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of
June 15, 2015. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60 (Procedures) of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be
replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal.
CHAIRMAN, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ATTEST:
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Eleanor Morris, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim held on June 15, 2015, by the following vote of the
members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 15th day of June, 2015.
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
- 6 - PC2015-***
- 7 - PC2015-***
EXHIBIT “B”
PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2015-00117
(DEV2015-00029)
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS
1 Security measures shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Anaheim Police
Department and to prevent disturbances to the neighborhood by excessive noise created by patrons entering or leaving the premises.
Police Department
2 The business shall not be operated in such a way as to be detrimental to the public
health, safety, or welfare of the surrounding area.
Police Department
3 There shall be no admission fee, cover charge, nor minimum purchase of alcoholic
beverages required.
Police Department
4 The hours of operation shall be limited to 12:00 a.m. seven days a week. Police Department
5 All persons serving or otherwise dispensing alcoholic beverages shall be 21 years
old or older.
Police Department
6 Persons serving alcohol shall not consume any alcoholic beverages. Police Department
7 Alcoholic beverages shall only be sold and served in distinctive cups with a logo
from the location it has been dispensed from. No other cups may be used for the
dispensing of alcoholic beverages. Said containers shall be distinct and different than containers of non-alcoholic beverages.
Police Department
8 If there is a gate/door in the perimeter fence for the patio, there shall be a sign
stating “No alcohol beyond this point”. The gate shall also be self-closing.
Police Department
9 There shall be a security guard in the patio area any time patrons are present. Police Department
10 The number of persons in attendance shall not exceed the maximum occupancy
load as determined by the Anaheim Fire Department. Signs indicating the occupant
load shall be posted in a conspicuous place on an approved sign near the main exit from the building.
Police Department
11 Entertainment shall not be allowed in the outdoor patio area. Outdoor events
and/or entertainment, if any, shall be subject to issuance of a Special Event Permit and all applicable regulations of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
Police Department
12 A security plan shall be submitted to the Chief of Police or his/her designee for
review and approval prior to operation of the business. The plan shall include the
number of security personnel that will be provided, job duties and description,
procedures on communication, ID check, occupancy load and a detailed description of how problems and problem guests will be handled.
Police Department
- 8 - PC2015-***
13 The licensee(s) shall not maintain or construct any type of enclosed room intended for use by patrons or customers for any purpose. Police Department
14 Signs shall be posted at the entrance to the building stating “No one under 21
allowed”.
Police Department
15 Petitioner shall police the area under their control in an effort to prevent the
loitering of persons around the premises.
Police Department
16 Loitering is prohibited on or around the premises under the control of the licensee. Police Department
17 Any graffiti painted or marked upon the premises or on any adjacent area under the
control of the property owner shall be removed or painted over within 24 hours of
being applied.
Planning Department,
Code Enforcement
Division
18 The property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion through the
provision of regular landscaping maintenance and removal of trash or debris.
Planning Department,
Code Enforcement
Division
PRIOR TO THE SALES OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES
19 Store Managers and cash register employees shall obtain LEAD (Licensee
Education on Alcohol and Drugs Program) Training from the Department of
Alcoholic Beverage Control. The contact number is 714-558-4101.
Police Department
GENERAL CONDITIONS
20 The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its officials, officers, employees and agents (collectively referred to individually and collectively as “Indemnitees”) from any and all claims, actions or
proceedings brought against Indemnitees to attack, review, set aside, void, or
annul the decision of the Indemnitees concerning this permit or any of the
proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done, or made prior to the decision, or to determine the reasonableness, legality or validity of any condition attached thereto. The Applicant’s indemnification is intended to include, but not be
limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded against or incurred by
Indemnitees and costs of suit, claim or litigation, including without limitation
attorneys’ fees and other costs, liabilities and expenses incurred by Indemnitees in connection with such proceeding.
Planning Department,
Planning Services
Division
21 The applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing of this
discretionary case application within 30 days of the issuance of the final invoice or
prior to the issuance of building permits for this project, whichever occurs first. Failure to pay all charges shall result in delays in the issuance of required permits or may result in the revocation of the approval of this application.
Planning Department,
Planning Services
Division
22 The property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and
specifications submitted to and reviewed by the City of Anaheim and which plans are on file with the Planning Department and as conditioned herein.
Planning Department,
Planning Services Division
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
June 2015
PARKING MANAGEMENT P LAN
CENTER CITY: MAKE BUILDING
500 SOUTH ANAHEIM BOULEVARD
CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA
ATTACHMENT NO. 7
June 2015
PARKING MANAGEMENT P LAN
CENTER CITY: MAKE BUILDING
500 SOUTH ANAHEIM BOULEVARD
CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA
Submitted to:
City of Anaheim Planning Department
200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Prepared by:
LSA Associates, Inc.
20 Executive Park, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92614
(949) 553-0666
Project No. AHM1502
P:\AHM1502\Report\MAKE Building Parking Study6.docx «06/10/15» i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... 1
Background ................................................................................................................................... 1
Project Summary ........................................................................................................................... 1
Summary of Findings .................................................................................................................... 4
PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................... 4
Land Use ....................................................................................................................................... 4
Project Access ............................................................................................................................... 5
Parking .......................................................................................................................................... 5
EXISTING SETTING ............................................................................................................................ 5
Geographic Location ..................................................................................................................... 5
Land Use Patterns .......................................................................................................................... 7
Existing Circulation ....................................................................................................................... 7
Existing Parking ............................................................................................................................ 9
CENTER CITY VISION ...................................................................................................................... 10
PARKING REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................................ 10
City Parking Requirements ......................................................................................................... 10
Proposed On-Site Parking and Parking Strategy ......................................................................... 11
PARKING ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................................... 12
Parking Accumulation ................................................................................................................. 12
Parking Utilization ...................................................................................................................... 16
Project Contribution and Potential Impact .................................................................................. 21
WALKABILITY .................................................................................................................................. 21
Center City Walking Experience ................................................................................................. 21
Center City Walking Surveys ...................................................................................................... 23
Comparison to Other Similar Sites .............................................................................................. 25
Walkability Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 30
TROLLEY SERVICES ........................................................................................................................ 30
WAYFINDING SIGNAGE.................................................................................................................. 31
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................. 31
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 31
Recommendations ....................................................................................................................... 32
APPENDIX
A: PARKING ACCUMULATION DATA
P:\AHM1502\Report\MAKE Building Parking Study6.docx «06/10/15» ii
FIGURES AND TABLES
FIGURES
Figure 1: Study Area .............................................................................................................................. 2
Figure 2: Proposed Site Plan .................................................................................................................. 3
Figure 3: Regional Location ................................................................................................................... 6
Figure 4: Project Location ...................................................................................................................... 8
Figure 5: Parking Accumulation Center City ....................................................................................... 14
Figure 6: Parking Accumulation – Packing District ............................................................................. 15
Figure 7a: Parking Utilization – Lunch Time Peak .............................................................................. 17
Figure 7b: Parking Utilization – Afternoon Peak ................................................................................. 18
Figure 7c: Parking Utilization – Dinner Peak ...................................................................................... 19
Figure 8: Distance from Proposed Project to Public Parking Locations .............................................. 22
Figure 9: Pedestrian Routes .................................................................................................................. 24
Figure 10: Average Walk Times – Downtown Disney ........................................................................ 26
Figure 11: Average Walk Times – South Coast Plaza ......................................................................... 28
Figure 12: Average Walk Times – Brea Mall ...................................................................................... 29
TABLES
Table A: Existing Parking Supply Within Study Area ........................................................................... 9
Table B: Anaheim Municipal Code Parking Requirement ................................................................... 11
Table C: Parking Accumulation for Study Area Parking Locations .................................................... 12
Table D: Parking Utilization for Study Area Parking Locations .......................................................... 16
Table E: Parking Utilization in Public Parking Structures ................................................................... 20
Table F: Off-Street Parking Utilization Without and With MAKE Building ...................................... 21
Table G: Summary of Surveyed Walking Distances and Times to MAKE Building .......................... 25
Table H: Summary of Surveyed Walking Distances and Times at Similar Areas ............................... 27
L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .
J U N E 2 0 1 5J U N E 2 0 1 5J U N E 2 0 1 5J U N E 2 0 1 5
P A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T PP A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T PP A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T PP A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T P L A NL A NL A NL A N
C E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B UC E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B UC E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B UC E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B U I L D I N GI L D I N GI L D I N GI L D I N G
C I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A LC I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A LC I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A LC I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A L I F O R N I AI F O R N I AI F O R N I AI F O R N I A
P:\AHM1502\Report\MAKE Building Parking Study6.docx «06/10/15» 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background
Based on the community’s desire to re-establish the heart of Anaheim after it was demolished in the
1970s, the City has been working to build a new Downtown Anaheim for the past few decades. These
efforts have resulted in a fabric of streets, buildings and open space that are creating a more active
and cohesive center of the City.
“The vision for the Greater Downtown is to create a recognizable urban city center, a
public place that is dense, urban, livable, active, diverse, and worth a visit. It will
capitalize on existing infrastructure, new and existing amenities, historic features, and
a mix of residential, commercial and civic uses in its core.”
- Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, December 2007, Greater Downtown of
Anaheim Guide for Development
The success of recent developments such as the Packing District and Center Street in downtown
Anaheim (recently re-branded as “Center City”) has attracted a significant number of new patrons and
visitors, many of whom are enjoying the unique businesses and offerings in Center City for the first
time. As would be expected, this success, although welcomed and important to meet the goal of
developing an urban city center, has created numerous operational demands and challenges, not the
least of which involves parking management.
The fundamentals for parking management in Center City were established by the Council in the
Greater Downtown of Anaheim Guide for Development. These fundamentals include the creation
and use of parking assets within a comfortable walking distance of destinations and attractions in
Center City. To that end, the current parking supply available to the MAKE Building includes 1,797
parking spaces located in seven public parking lots/structures within a five to eight minute walk of the
MAKE Building. Of these spaces, over 170 off-street spaces are located in the immediate vicinity of
the Make Building. Additionally, over 150 on-street parking spaces are also available in the
immediate vicinity.
Project Summary
The proposed MAKE Building is a renovation and reuse of an existing building into a 13,790-square-
foot (sf) commercial/retail establishment at 500 South Anaheim Boulevard in the City of Anaheim.
Figure 1 illustrates the location of the proposed project. Specifically, the MAKE Building is proposed
to consist of three suites housing alcoholic beverage manufacturing (a nanobrewery, a vintner, and a
nanodistillery) and one retail suite. An outdoor patio will serve as a tasting area for all three
manufacturers. Figure 2 presents the project’s site plan. Parking is proposed to be provided off-site
within shared parking lots in Center City.
FIGURE 1
StudyAreaSOURCE: Google Earth
FEET
2801400
N
I:\AHM1502\G\StudyArea.cdr (6/10/15)
MAKE Building
BROADWAYBROADWAY
SANTA ANA STSANTA ANA ST
OAK STOAK ST
AN
A
H
E
I
M
B
L
V
D
AN
A
H
E
I
M
B
L
V
D
LE
M
O
N
S
T
LE
M
O
N
S
T
CL
A
U
D
I
N
A
S
T
CL
A
U
D
I
N
A
S
T
PROJECT
LOCATION
PH
I
L
A
D
E
L
P
H
I
A
S
T
PH
I
L
A
D
E
L
P
H
I
A
S
T
ELM STELM ST
Lot 6Lot 6Lot 5Lot 5
Lot 7Lot 7
Lot 8Lot 8
Lot 2
(Temporary)
Lot 2
(Temporary)
Lot 3Lot 3
LEGEND
- Packing District (Private) Parking
- Public Parking
- On-Street Parking
Lot 1Lot 1
Lot 4Lot 4
Parking Supply:
428 Spaces
Parking Supply:
428 Spaces
Parking Supply:
750 Spaces
Parking Supply:
750 Spaces
Parking Supply:
405 Spaces
Parking Supply:
405 Spaces
Parking Supply:
103 Spaces
Parking Supply:
103 Spaces
Parking Supply:
40 Spaces
Parking Supply:
40 Spaces
Parking Supply:
83 Spaces
Parking Supply:
83 Spaces
Parking Supply:
52 Spaces
Parking Supply:
52 Spaces
Parking Supply:
19 Spaces
Parking Supply:
19 Spaces
FIGURE 2
Proposed Site PlanSOURCE: Google Earth
FEET
550
I:\AHM1502\G\Site Plan.cdr (6/10/15)
MAKE Building
SANTA ANA STSANTA ANA ST
AN
A
H
E
I
M
B
L
V
D
AN
A
H
E
I
M
B
L
V
D
N
PROJECT
SITE
Tasting PatioTasting Patio
Suite BSuite B
Suite ASuite A
Suite CSuite C
Suite
D
Suite
D
MallMall
L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .
J U N E 2 0 1 5J U N E 2 0 1 5J U N E 2 0 1 5J U N E 2 0 1 5
P A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T PP A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T PP A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T PP A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T P L A NL A NL A NL A N
C E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B UC E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B UC E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B UC E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B U I L D I N GI L D I N GI L D I N GI L D I N G
C I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A LC I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A LC I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A LC I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A L I F O R N I AI F O R N I AI F O R N I AI F O R N I A
P:\AHM1502\Report\MAKE Building Parking Study6.docx «06/10/15» 4
Summary of Findings
The Parking Management Plan demonstrates the effect of the proposed MAKE Building on the
parking supply within Center City and analyzes whether adequate convenient parking supply exists to
support the potential demand created by the proposed use. For purposes of this study, 1,797 parking
spaces within seven public lots/structures (See Figure 1) are identified as the conveniently available
“pool” of parking spaces to serve the MAKE Building. Lot 2 is temporarily used for valet parking and
was not counted in the future parking supply. The peak period for retail and entertainment demand is
Thursday and Friday nights, weekends, and holidays. Parking surveys conducted for this analysis
indicated peak parking usage for these public lots/structures on Saturdays is currently 736 spaces.
The MAKE Building is expected to generate demand for approximately 131 additional parking spaces
(a 7% increase), for a total demand of 867 parking spaces in the parking “pool” during peak Saturday
periods. The peak demand would represent less than 50% of the available parking spaces.
All parking lots/structures within the parking pool are located within reasonable walking distance
(0.23 to 0.33 mile) from the MAKE Building. Walking times to these lots were measured and found
to average between 5 minutes, 20 seconds, and 8 minutes, 27 seconds, depending on wait times at
pedestrian signals. Similar sites offering commercial and social entertainment were surveyed and
similar distances (0.22 mile to 0.38 mile) and walking times (4 minutes, 45 seconds, to 8 minutes, 15
seconds) on average were required between parking spaces and destinations.
A new trolley service, to be operational prior to the opening of the MAKE Building, will be used to
transport patrons who may choose not to walk, or may have difficulty walking, from the Packing
District and MAKE Building to the underutilized parking facilities along Center Street. The trolley
stop will be located approximately 350 feet from the MAKE Building entrance, which would require
less than 2 minutes to walk.
In order to facilitate the use of the under-utilized parking facilities in downtown, the City plans to
implement a comprehensive wayfinding signage program for Center City prior to the opening of the
MAKE Building. The wayfinding signage will establish a series of pedestrian and vehicular linkages
between the Packing District and the public parking structures in Center City. The signage will
provide more simplified and consistent signs that would direct significant numbers of Center City
patrons to the public parking structures. The City and the Packing District owner/operator will also
utilize various websites and social media to direct visitor traffic to these public structures.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Land Use
The project proposes to renovate and reuse the vacant structure located at 500 South Anaheim
Boulevard that was previously occupied by a radiator repair shop. As shown on Figure 2, after
completion of the project, the 10,590 sf building will include a 1,550 sf indoor mall (hallway), 1,290
sf of restroom/storage space, and 7,750 sf of leased space divided into four separate suites: A (2,600
sf), B (2,100 sf), C (2,600 sf), and D (450 sf). Suites A, B, and C are anticipated to house alcoholic
beverage manufacturers. Suite D is anticipated to be retail. A 3,200 sf outdoor patio will serve as a
shared tasting area for the three alcoholic beverage manufacturers.
L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .
J U N E 2 0 1 5J U N E 2 0 1 5J U N E 2 0 1 5J U N E 2 0 1 5
P A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T PP A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T PP A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T PP A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T P L A NL A NL A NL A N
C E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B UC E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B UC E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B UC E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B U I L D I N GI L D I N GI L D I N GI L D I N G
C I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A LC I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A LC I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A LC I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A L I F O R N I AI F O R N I AI F O R N I AI F O R N I A
P:\AHM1502\Report\MAKE Building Parking Study6.docx «06/10/15» 5
Project Access
Proposed pedestrian access to the site is provided along Anaheim Boulevard and Santa Ana Street.
The project includes an open patio space at the corner of Anaheim Boulevard/Santa Ana Street.
Visitors will be able to access the interior of the building through the patio. A new public alley is
proposed immediately east of the site. The alley will provide access for service vehicles and a
sidewalk providing a path of travel to the proposed handicap parking spaces. Design of the alley has
been reviewed and approved by the City Building Department. The service drive and entrance is
provided on the southerly portion of the site.
Parking
The necessary handicap accessible parking will be provided on an off-site public parking lot southeast
of the MAKE Building. The proposed off-street parking for the MAKE Building will be provided in
seven off-street parking lots and structures. This report analyzes the current use of these shared
parking resources and the anticipated future utilization after completion of the MAKE Building.
EXISTING SETTING
Geographic Location
The project is located at 500 South Anaheim Boulevard in the Packing
District within the Colony Historic District of Anaheim. Figure 3 depicts the
regional geographic location of the proposed project in relation to three of
Anaheim’s activity centers: The Anaheim Resort, the Platinum Triangle,
and the Colony Historic District. The three districts are synergistic
communities that are each unique but collectively contribute to the overall
community. The Anaheim Resort surrounds Disneyland, Disney California
Adventure, the Anaheim Convention Center, and the hotels serving the
visitors to these major attractions. The Platinum Triangle encompasses the
transforming industrial neighborhood near Angel Stadium. What was once
exclusively home to light-industrial manufacturing and warehousing is
being built out into a new high-density residential and employment center
that capitalizes on the transportation assets offered by the proximity to Interstate 5 (I-5), State Route
57 (SR-57), and the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC). The Center City,
within the Anaheim Colony Historic District, serves as an amenity to these two districts.
The Anaheim Colony Historic District is bounded by
North Street, East Street, South Street, and West
Street, which were the original boundaries of
Anaheim when it was founded in 1857. The Colony
Historic District comprises traditional residential
neighborhoods, culturally significant parks, the civic
center, and Center City—an emerging neighborhood
surrounding the civic center that is becoming the
active and vibrant downtown center of Anaheim.
FIGURE 3
I:\AHM1502\G\Regional Location.cdr (6/10/15)
Regional Location
MAKE Building
SOURCE: ESRI
FEET
400020000
N
Anaheim Colony
Historic District
Anaheim Colony
Historic District
Anaheim
Resort
Anaheim
Resort
Platinum
Triangle
Platinum
Triangle
5
5
91
57
22
PROJECT
LOCATION
Center
City
Center
City
L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .
J U N E 2 0 1 5J U N E 2 0 1 5J U N E 2 0 1 5J U N E 2 0 1 5
P A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T PP A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T PP A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T PP A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T P L A NL A NL A NL A N
C E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B UC E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B UC E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B UC E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B U I L D I N GI L D I N GI L D I N GI L D I N G
C I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A LC I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A LC I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A LC I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A L I F O R N I AI F O R N I AI F O R N I AI F O R N I A
P:\AHM1502\Report\MAKE Building Parking Study6.docx «06/10/15» 7
Land Use Patterns
Figure 4 illustrates the land uses surrounding the
MAKE Building. As Figure 4 shows, Center City
includes civic, commercial, retail, and residential uses.
These land use designations layer together to create a
vibrant, dense, urban, pedestrian-oriented and active
core in Center City.
Specifically, along Anaheim Boulevard between
Broadway and Santa Ana Street (where heavy
pedestrian usage is expected to access the MAKE Building), the design of the existing developments
contribute to the dense urban community vision. West of Anaheim Boulevard, the frontages of the
residential buildings have been designed to face the street with minimal setbacks. Residential porches
face the street and have pathways that lead directly to the sidewalk along Anaheim Boulevard. This
development design encourages pedestrian activity and provides additional “eyes on the street,”
which are crucial to a vibrant downtown community. The Packing District has been designed with the
inclusion of open space (Farmer’s Park) that allows for both informal and organized gatherings such
as picnics and farmers’ markets. Farmer’s Park connects to Anaheim Boulevard and can be easily
accessed by pedestrians, thereby further contributing to the overall Center City experience.
The site of the proposed project is currently a vacant radiator repair shop that appears disconnected
from, and does not contribute to, the overall experience. The proposed MAKE Building will further
contribute to the experience by providing an attraction that would generate activity within the
community. The proposed MAKE Building is not envisioned to stand alone. The MAKE Building
closes a gap along Anaheim Boulevard, which will allow for the expansion of the larger Colony
Historic District vision by creating density, activity, and pedestrian orientation within Center City.
Existing Circulation
There are many modes of travel available within the Center City for the proposed MAKE Building.
The most prominent mode of travel currently is the automobile. Major arterials such as Anaheim
Boulevard, Broadway, and Santa Ana Street provide regional circulation. Many minor local streets
(e.g., Center Street Promenade, 42nd Street, Elm Street, and Claudina Street) also provide
connections to Center City land uses. Major intersections are typically controlled by traffic signals. At
these intersections, marked crosswalks provide pedestrian connectivity. Intersections of minor streets
in residential neighborhoods often have stop-controlled intersections. Crosswalks may or may not be
provided for pedestrians along these minor streets.
It should be noted that patrons of the MAKE Building who are not residents in Center City are most
likely to arrive via private vehicle. However, as the vision of a more walkable community is being
realized, pedestrian-oriented facilities are being provided to promote walkability and human density.
Though patrons might arrive via private vehicle, infrastructure is being constructed and implemented
to encourage the sharing of parking resources in the interest of maintaining a walkable district.
Improvements to public facilities are being constructed concurrent with adjacent development to
encourage and support walking within Center City.
FIGURE 4
Project LocationSOURCE: Google Earth
FEET
2801400
N
I:\AHM1502\G\Project Location.cdr (6/10/15)
MAKE Building
BROADWAYBROADWAY
SANTA ANA STSANTA ANA ST
OAK STOAK ST
AN
A
H
E
I
M
B
L
V
D
AN
A
H
E
I
M
B
L
V
D
LE
M
O
N
S
T
LE
M
O
N
S
T
CL
A
U
D
I
N
A
S
T
CL
A
U
D
I
N
A
S
T
PROJECT
LOCATION
ELM STELM ST
ResidentialResidential
Residential
(Under
Construction)
Residential
(Under
Construction)
ResidentialResidential
ResidentialResidential
RetailRetail
TheaterTheaterMuzeoMuzeo
Mixed UseMixed Use
The
Packing House
The
Packing House
Farmer’s
Park
Farmer’s
Park
Anaheim
West
Tower
Anaheim
West
Tower
City
Hall
City
Hall
Mixed UseMixed Use
Utility
Substation
Utility
Substation
IndustrialIndustrial
Packing District
Boundary
Packing District
Boundary
Packard
Building
Packard
Building
L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .
J U N E 2 0 1 5J U N E 2 0 1 5J U N E 2 0 1 5J U N E 2 0 1 5
P A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T PP A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T PP A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T PP A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T P L A NL A NL A NL A N
C E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B UC E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B UC E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B UC E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B U I L D I N GI L D I N GI L D I N GI L D I N G
C I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A LC I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A LC I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A LC I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A L I F O R N I AI F O R N I AI F O R N I AI F O R N I A
P:\AHM1502\Report\MAKE Building Parking Study6.docx «06/10/15» 9
New 8- to 10-foot-wide sidewalks have been
installed along Anaheim Boulevard, which help
pedestrians feel safe while walking. The sidewalks
are lined with shade trees and lamp posts that
respectively provide shade during the day and
lighting at night. Restaurants and retail stores along
Anaheim Boulevard are marketing to passing
pedestrians. This natural occurrence points to an
emerging shift in travel mode within Center City
whereby private vehicles are left at a designated
parking area and walking becomes the travel mode
of choice.
Other modes of travel within Center City are buses and bicycle paths. The Orange County
Transportation Agency (OCTA) has a bus route (Route 47) that runs from Fullerton to Newport
Beach via Anaheim Boulevard. The Anaheim Resort Transportation (ART) has a route (Route 10)
that runs from Disneyland to the Packing District via Anaheim Boulevard. The City’s Master Bicycle
Plan proposes a Top Priority Class II Bikeway along Broadway as well as additional bicycle parking
locations. These routes provide alternative modes of travel along Anaheim Boulevard that can be
utilized by patrons of Center City, including the future MAKE Building.
Existing Parking
The vision for Center City is to create a walkable
pedestrian-oriented community. Project-specific parking
requirements in this area have been reduced for the purpose
of implementing the walkable vision of Center City.
However, this does not mean there is a parking shortage
within the area. While on-site parking requirements have
been reduced,
sufficient off-
street parking
is provided within Center City to allow parking
resources to be shared among the various destinations.
As Figure 1 shows, the parking resources are located
centrally and are walkable to many different
destinations. Table A displays the parking supply for the
parking areas within the study area. While all of these
parking areas exist today, Lot 2 is only temporarily
being used for valet operations and most on-street
parking is adjacent to residential uses. Neither of these
can be relied upon to serve future commercial
development in the Center City.
Table A: Existing Parking Supply
Within Study Area
Parking Area Parking Supply
On-Street
Anaheim Boulevard 25
Elm Street 30
Santa Ana Street 55
Claudina Street 42
Total On-Street Spaces 152
Off-Street
Lot 1 103
Lot 2 (temporary) 83
Lot 3 52
Lot 4 19
Lot 5 750
Lot 6 428
Lot 7 405
Lot 8 40
Total Off-Street Spaces 1,797
L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .
J U N E 2 0 1 5J U N E 2 0 1 5J U N E 2 0 1 5J U N E 2 0 1 5
P A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T PP A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T PP A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T PP A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T P L A NL A NL A NL A N
C E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B UC E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B UC E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B UC E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B U I L D I N GI L D I N GI L D I N GI L D I N G
C I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A LC I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A LC I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A LC I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A L I F O R N I AI F O R N I AI F O R N I AI F O R N I A
P:\AHM1502\Report\MAKE Building Parking Study6.docx «06/10/15» 10
CENTER CITY VISION
The City of Anaheim envisions a vibrant center with thriving residential development and
commercial offerings that satisfy residents’ basic everyday needs as well as high-energy commercial
offerings that attract visitors and create a sense of place. As shown on Figure 3, the Anaheim Colony
Historic District is located in close proximity to the Anaheim Resort and the Platinum Triangle.
Center City is the heart of the Anaheim Colony Historic District. Drawing customers is, of course, the
goal of all commercial development. It is difficult to attract a crowd when you are offering the same
thing as everyone else.
In Orange County, commercial development typically consists of chain stores separated from the
street by large parking lots. In Center City, the City is cultivating an environment where entrepreneurs
can stake a claim in the Orange County commercial landscape. The MAKE Building adds to the
collection of unique attractions that create a sense of place and an irreplaceable reason for visiting
Anaheim.
The MAKE Building will be located in a repurposed historic structure. Use of this building supports
the ambiance of the district and has benefits to walkability. The building is not set back from the
street and presents an inviting destination for pedestrians. The restored building will fill a gap
between the Packing District to the north and the new residential development to the south.
Walkability will be enhanced by providing visual interest for those walking by in addition to those
walking to the MAKE Building. However, not all of the MAKE Building patrons will be local to
Center City. Many will drive to this destination, and this parcel contains only the building. The
historic structure does not have a large parking lot adjacent to it. The remainder of the report
describes how this issue is addressed.
PARKING REQUIREMENTS
City Parking Requirements
Anaheim Municipal Code (AMC) Section 18.42.040 establishes off-street parking requirements. It
provides parking rates for alcoholic beverage manufacturing and tasting rooms for alcoholic beverage
manufacturing as well as for general retail uses. According to the AMC, 1.55 parking spaces per
thousand square feet (TSF) are needed for alcoholic beverage manufacturing, 17.0 spaces/TSF are
needed for tasting rooms and outside patios servicing alcoholic beverage manufacturing, and 5.5
spaces/TSF are needed for general retail.
The MAKE Building is approximately 10,590 sf in size, with 7,750 sf being leasable space. A 1,550
sf mall space provides internal circulation among the entrance, suites, and restrooms. The mall may
also be utilized as a tasting area in the future. Restrooms and storage occupy the remaining 1,290 sf of
the building. As part of the project, a 3,200 sf outside patio will be constructed on the northwest
corner of the property. This patio will function as a shared tasting area for the three alcoholic
beverage manufacturers located in Suites A, B, and C. Within each suite, up to 750 sf may be set
aside for individual tasting rooms. Suite D is anticipated to be a retail use complementary to the
alcoholic beverage manufacturing and accounts for the remainder of the MAKE Building. Table B
displays the AMC parking requirement for the MAKE Building.
L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .
J U N E 2 0 1 5J U N E 2 0 1 5J U N E 2 0 1 5J U N E 2 0 1 5
P A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T PP A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T PP A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T PP A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T P L A NL A NL A NL A N
C E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B UC E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B UC E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B UC E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B U I L D I N GI L D I N GI L D I N GI L D I N G
C I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A LC I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A LC I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A LC I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A L I F O R N I AI F O R N I AI F O R N I AI F O R N I A
P:\AHM1502\Report\MAKE Building Parking Study6.docx «06/10/15» 11
As Table B shows, the MAKE Building
would require 131.2 parking spaces based
on the anticipated mix of land uses. Of
these 131 parking spaces, a minimum of 5
spaces must be handicap-accessible spaces.
Proposed On-Site Parking and
Parking Strategy
AMC Section 18.42.050.020 states that the
required off-street parking spaces should be
located on the same parcel as the main
building, on a parcel adjacent to that parcel, “or within close proximity to the lot, provided the
parking is located within reasonable walking distance as determined by the Planning Director or his
or her designee.”
..As previously noted, handicap-accessible spaces serving the
MAKE Building will be provided in a surface parking lot
adjacent to and southeast of the site. Design of this parking
area has been reviewed and approved by the City Building
Department. The remainder of the off-street parking spaces
will not be located in a single designated parking lot. Visitors
to Center City are likely to visit multiple locations, including
the MAKE Building, during their trip to Anaheim. The
tendency to park once and visit multiple nearby businesses
would make it
difficult, even with a
designated parking lot,
to differentiate parking
demand for the MAKE
Building from parking
demand for the
Packing District or other uses in Center City.
Furthermore, designating specific parking lots for one
particular use reduces the flexibility of the overall parking
supply to accommodate demand as it shifts. As an example,
new and novel developments can have a honeymoon period
of higher than typical parking demand and then settle into a
more normal and typical pattern. Also, some uses experience
their normal peak parking demand in the daytime while other
uses experience their normal peak parking demand at
nighttime. A successful downtown district has a parking
supply that can adapt and accommodate these variations in
parking demand while supporting visitors’ desires to park
their cars one time.
Table B: Anaheim Municipal Code Parking
Requirement
Land Use
Parking Rate
(per 1,000 sf)
Size
(sf)
Required
Parking
Alcoholic Beverage
Manufacturing 1.55 6,340 9.7
General Retail 5.5 450 2.5
Tasting Rooms and
Mall 17.0 3,800 64.6
Outside Patio 17.0 3,200 54.4
Total 13,790 131.2
sf = square foot/feet
L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .
J U N E 2 0 1 5J U N E 2 0 1 5J U N E 2 0 1 5J U N E 2 0 1 5
P A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T PP A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T PP A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T PP A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T P L A NL A NL A NL A N
C E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B UC E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B UC E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B UC E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B U I L D I N GI L D I N GI L D I N GI L D I N G
C I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A LC I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A LC I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A LC I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A L I F O R N I AI F O R N I AI F O R N I AI F O R N I A
P:\AHM1502\Report\MAKE Building Parking Study6.docx «06/10/15» 12
Although there will be no on-site parking spaces for the MAKE Building, patrons will have access to
the flexible parking resources of Center City. Off-street parking is available in close proximity to the
Packing District along Anaheim Boulevard, Santa Ana Street, and Claudina Street. These lots are
currently being used by patrons of the Packing District with both self-park and valet parking options.
Parking is available within the public parking structures located along Center Street. These public lots
provide free parking but may have time limitations (e.g., 2-hour time limit on levels one and two of
Lot 5 and Lot 6). The public parking lots are located within a reasonable walking distance (as
described in subsequent sections) to the proposed MAKE Building and will be discussed further in
this analysis. This parking analysis describes the anticipated effect of the MAKE Building on the total
parking supply within Center City.
PARKING ANALYSIS
Parking Accumulation
To determine the adequacy of Center City’s shared parking resources, a survey of the existing parking
supply and demand was conducted. LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) coordinated with an independent
data collection company, National Data and Surveying Services (NDS), to collect existing parking
accumulation data from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. on Saturday April 4, 2015, at the three on-street
parking areas and eight off-street parking lots included in the study area. Saturday was chosen as the
survey day because that day of the week has been observed to be the busiest for visitors to Center
City. On-street parking is used by residential and commercial land uses and is available to the public
on a first-come/first-serve basis. For on-street parking, surveys were conducted that showed few
available parking spaces within the study area. On-street parking was not counted toward the parking
supply available for new development. Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 are currently utilized by patrons of the
Packing District,
although Lot 2 is a
temporary parking lot.
Where valet parking
is utilized, total
parked vehicles could
exceed the striped
parking supply.
Parking demand
exceeding parking
supply can also result
from drivers parking
illegally at the ends of
aisles. Lots 5, 6, and 7
are publicly owned
structures. Lot 8 is a
publicly-owned
surface parking lot.
The results of the
parking surveys are
included in Appendix
A and summarized below.
Table C: Parking Accumulation for Study Area Parking
Locations
Time
Location (Supply)
Lot 1
(103)
Lot 21
(83)
Lot 3
(52)
Lot 4
(19)
Lot 5
(750)
Lot 6
(428)
Lot 7
(405)
Lot 8
(40)
Total
(1,797)
10:00 a.m. 39 0 21 14 270 91 65 2 502
11:00 a.m. 59 2 25 17 286 95 66 4 554
12:00 p.m. 95 15 51 19 309 105 76 7 677
1:00 p.m. 93 49 52 19 314 116 76 13 732
2:00 p.m. 90 51 54 19 257 119 80 17 687
3:00 p.m. 95 28 53 19 294 145 87 15 736
4:00 p.m. 97 29 52 19 274 145 87 9 712
5:00 p.m. 96 29 54 19 261 145 73 13 690
6:00 p.m. 96 38 53 19 288 138 77 20 729
7:00 p.m. 93 61 55 19 248 132 93 19 720
8:00 p.m. 96 80 54 19 188 135 103 18 693
9:00 p.m. 98 52 54 19 180 128 114 20 665
10:00 p.m. 104 25 41 19 176 111 92 13 581
11:00 p.m. 63 8 26 19 157 109 71 9 462
12:00 a.m. 18 0 10 19 156 105 65 3 376
Peak 104 80 55 19 314 145 114 20 736
1 Temporarily used for valet parking.
L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .
J U N E 2 0 1 5J U N E 2 0 1 5J U N E 2 0 1 5J U N E 2 0 1 5
P A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T PP A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T PP A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T PP A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T P L A NL A NL A NL A N
C E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B UC E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B UC E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B UC E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B U I L D I N GI L D I N GI L D I N GI L D I N G
C I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A LC I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A LC I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A LC I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A L I F O R N I AI F O R N I AI F O R N I AI F O R N I A
P:\AHM1502\Report\MAKE Building Parking Study6.docx «06/10/15» 13
Table C summarizes the surveyed parking data. A review of the data identified three times when
parking demand peaked. The three peak hours occurred at 1:00 p.m. (lunch peak-hour), 3:00 p.m.
(afternoon peak-hour), and 6:00 p.m. (dinner peak-hour).
LSA examined the variation in parking demand that occurs throughout the day for each of the parking
areas. Figure 5 illustrates the variation in total parking demand. As Figure 5 shows, total parking
demand is fairly constant between 12:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. and well below the total parking supply.
Figure 6 focuses on the four parking lots nearest the Packing District and the MAKE Building.
Lot 1 is closest to the Packing House and has a high parking demand because of its proximity to its
destination. Lot 1 has a total parking supply of 103 stalls. It should be noted that a portion of the stalls
within Lot 1 are designated for valet only. The remainders of the stalls are self-park. At the lunch
peak hour, the parking demand was 93 stalls. At the afternoon peak hour, the parking demand was 95
stalls. At the dinner peak hour, the parking demand was 96 stalls, with 7 stalls still available;
however, the parking lot was full at 10:00 p.m.
Lot 2 is a valet-only parking lot with a parking supply of 82 stalls. At the
lunch peak hour, the parking demand was 49 stalls, with a residual of 33
stalls remaining. At the afternoon peak hour, the parking demand was 28
stalls. At the dinner peak hour, the parking demand was 38 stalls. At the
highest observed demand (8:00 p.m.), a residual of 3 stalls remained in
Lot 2.
Lot 3 is a self-park lot with a parking supply of 52 stalls. This lot was
heavily utilized and did not have any remaining parking spaces between
12:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m.
Lot 4 is a self-park lot with a total parking supply of 19 stalls that are
available for the Packing House District. These spaces were fully utilized after 12:00 p.m.
LSA similarly examined on-street parking. For the streets included in
the study area (i.e., Anaheim Boulevard, Elm Street, Claudina Street,
and Santa Ana Street), little or no residual parking was identified
between 12:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. It should be noted that multifamily
residential developments in the vicinity share on-street parking with
nearby commercial development, and it is difficult to determine for
which land use the vehicles are parked. As noted above, the on-street
parking supply was determined by applying the City of Anaheim
parallel parking stall length requirement (22 ft) or the angled parking
stall width requirement (9 ft) to the total feet of parkable street (e.g., no
red curb or fire hydrant). On Anaheim Boulevard, 25 parallel parking
spaces are delineated by pavement markings, where such parking is
allowed between Broadway and Santa Ana Street. On Elm Street,
parallel parking is provided on both the north and south sides of the
street. The parking supply totals approximately 30 spaces. On Claudina Street, parallel parking is
provided on both the east and west sides of the street for a total of 42 spaces. On Santa Ana Street,
from Lemon Street to Anaheim Boulevard, 8 parallel parking spaces are provided on the north side
0
20
0
40
0
60
0
80
0
10
0
0
12
0
0
14
0
0
16
0
0
18
0
0
20
0
0
1
0
:
0
0
A
M
1
1
:
0
0
A
M
1
2
:
0
0
P
M
1
:
0
0
P
M
2
:
0
0
P
M
3
:
0
0
P
M
4
:
0
0
P
M
5
:
0
0
P
M
6
:
0
0
P
M
7
:
0
0
P
M
8
:
0
0
P
M
9
:
0
0
P
M
1
0
:
0
0
P
M
1
1
:
0
0
P
M
1
2
:
0
0
A
M
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
p
a
c
e
s
To
t
a
l
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
A
c
c
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
D
e
m
a
n
d
Su
p
p
l
y
FIGURE 5
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
A
c
c
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
-
C
e
n
t
e
r
C
i
t
y
I:\
A
H
M
1
5
0
2
\
G
\
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
A
c
c
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
-
C
e
n
t
e
r
C
i
t
y
.
c
d
r
(
6
/
1
0
/
1
5
)
MAKE Building
020406080
10
0
12
0
1
0
:
0
0
A
M
1
1
:
0
0
A
M
1
2
:
0
0
P
M
1
:
0
0
P
M
2
:
0
0
P
M
3
:
0
0
P
M
4
:
0
0
P
M
5
:
0
0
P
M
6
:
0
0
P
M
7
:
0
0
P
M
8
:
0
0
P
M
9
:
0
0
P
M
1
0
:
0
0
P
M
1
1
:
0
0
P
M
1
2
:
0
0
A
M
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
p
a
c
e
s
Lo
t
1
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
A
c
c
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
D
e
m
a
n
d
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
S
u
p
p
l
y
0102030405060708090
1
0
:
0
0
A
M
1
1
:
0
0
A
M
1
2
:
0
0
P
M
1
:
0
0
P
M
2
:
0
0
P
M
3
:
0
0
P
M
4
:
0
0
P
M
5
:
0
0
P
M
6
:
0
0
P
M
7
:
0
0
P
M
8
:
0
0
P
M
9
:
0
0
P
M
1
0
:
0
0
P
M
1
1
:
0
0
P
M
12:00 AM
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
p
a
c
e
s
Lo
t
2
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
A
c
c
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Parking Demand Parking Supply
0102030405060
1
0
:
0
0
A
M
1
1
:
0
0
A
M
1
2
:
0
0
P
M
1
:
0
0
P
M
2
:
0
0
P
M
3
:
0
0
P
M
4
:
0
0
P
M
5
:
0
0
P
M
6
:
0
0
P
M
7
:
0
0
P
M
8
:
0
0
P
M
9
:
0
0
P
M
1
0
:
0
0
P
M
1
1
:
0
0
P
M
1
2
:
0
0
A
M
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
p
a
c
e
s
Lo
t
3
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
A
c
c
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
D
e
m
a
n
d
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
S
u
p
p
l
y
FIGURE 6
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
A
c
c
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
-
P
a
c
k
i
n
g
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
I:\
A
H
M
1
5
0
2
\
G
\
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
A
c
c
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
-
P
a
c
k
i
n
g
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
.
c
d
r
(
6
/
1
0
/
1
5
)
MAKE Building
0510152025
1
0
:
0
0
A
M
1
1
:
0
0
A
M
1
2
:
0
0
P
M
1
:
0
0
P
M
2
:
0
0
P
M
3
:
0
0
P
M
4
:
0
0
P
M
5
:
0
0
P
M
6
:
0
0
P
M
7
:
0
0
P
M
8
:
0
0
P
M
9
:
0
0
P
M
1
0
:
0
0
P
M
1
1
:
0
0
P
M
12:00 AM
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
p
a
c
e
s
Lo
t
4
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
A
c
c
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Parking Demand Parking Supply
L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .
J U N E 2 0 1 5J U N E 2 0 1 5J U N E 2 0 1 5J U N E 2 0 1 5
P A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T PP A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T PP A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T PP A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T P L A NL A NL A NL A N
C E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B UC E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B UC E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B UC E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B U I L D I N GI L D I N GI L D I N GI L D I N G
C I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A LC I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A LC I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A LC I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A L I F O R N I AI F O R N I AI F O R N I AI F O R N I A
P:\AHM1502\Report\MAKE Building Parking Study6.docx «06/10/15» 16
of the street only. On Santa Ana Street, from Anaheim Boulevard to Claudina Street, 16 total parallel
parking spaces are located on the north and south sides of the street. On Santa Ana Street, from
Claudina Street to Philadelphia Street, angled parking is provided along the north side of the street
only. The parking supply totals approximately 31 spaces. In several instances, the number of vehicles
counted using on-street parking exceeded the calculated parking supply. This can be attributed to:
shorter vehicle lengths, vehicles illegally parked by fire hydrants, and parking in front of driveways.
For the purposes of this analysis, no on-street parking spaces were assumed to be available to satisfy
the project’s parking demand.
This focused look at the parking lots and streets near the Packing District revealed that few spaces are
expected to be available for other Center City uses. Parking demand for the Packing House that
exceeds the supply of these four lots already spills over into on-street parking and into the other
Center City shared parking resources. It is possible, however, that some MAKE Building vehicles
may end up in these lots. This is especially possible if both the Packing House and MAKE Building
are visited during the trip. The net effect is that additional parking demand will find the areas where
parking is currently available.
Parking Utilization
Table D presents an analysis of the peak utilization for each of the off-street parking areas in the
study area. Lots 1, 2, and 3 near the Packing District are fully utilized or nearly fully utilized during
their peak demand. Importantly, Table D identifies that several of the parking lots that make up the
shared parking resources of Center City are not fully utilized. In total, at peak parking demand
(3:00 p.m.), 736 of the 1,797 off-street parking spaces within the study area (41 percent) are utilized.
This leaves 59 percent of the total off-street parking spaces available.
Table D: Parking Utilization for Study Area Parking Locations
Location Off-Street Parking Supply Peak Observed Demand Peak Time Parking Utilized
Lot 1 103 104 10:00 p.m. 100%
Lot 21 83 (temporary) 80 8:00 p.m. 96%
Lot 3 52 55 7:00 p.m. 100%
Lot 4 19 19 9:00 p.m. 100%
Lot 5 750 314 1:00 p.m. 42%
Lot 6 428 145 3:00 p.m. 34%
Lot 7 405 114 9:00 p.m. 28%
Lot 8 40 20 6:00 p.m. 50%
Total 1,797 (without Lot 2) 736 3:00 p.m. 41%
1 Temporarily used for valet parking.
Figures 7a through 7c illustrate the parking utilization within the study area for each of the three
identified peak hours. These figures clearly depict the trend of higher parking utilization at the south
end of Center City, near the Packing District. This trend holds true for each of the peak periods. The
availability to accommodate increased parking demand is concentrated in Lots 5, 6, 7, and 8. Table E
focuses on these parking lots and examines the parking utilization and availability during each of the
identified peak times for parking demand in Center City. Table E also examines parking utilization
FIGURE 7a
Parking Utilization - Lunch Time PeakSOURCE: Google Earth
FEET
2801400
N
I:\AHM1502\G\Utilization-Lunch Peak.cdr (6/4/15)
MAKE Building
BROADWAYBROADWAY
SANTA ANA STSANTA ANA ST
OAK STOAK ST
AN
A
H
E
I
M
B
L
V
D
AN
A
H
E
I
M
B
L
V
D
LE
M
O
N
S
T
LE
M
O
N
S
T
CL
A
U
D
I
N
A
S
T
CL
A
U
D
I
N
A
S
T
PROJECT
LOCATION
PH
I
L
A
D
E
L
P
H
I
A
S
T
PH
I
L
A
D
E
L
P
H
I
A
S
T
ELM STELM ST
LEGEND
- Packing District (Private) Parking
- Public Parking
- On-Street Parking
- Percent of Parking Utilized (in Red)
Lot 6Lot 6Lot 5Lot 5
Lot 1Lot 1
Lot 7Lot 7
Lot 8Lot 8
Lot 3Lot 3
Lot 2
(Temporary)
Lot 2
(Temporary)
Lot 4Lot 4
FIGURE 7b
Parking Utilization -Afternoon PeakSOURCE: Google Earth
FEET
2801400
N
I:\AHM1502\G\Utilization-Afternoon Peak.cdr (6/4/15)
MAKE Building
BROADWAYBROADWAY
SANTA ANA STSANTA ANA ST
OAK STOAK ST
AN
A
H
E
I
M
B
L
V
D
AN
A
H
E
I
M
B
L
V
D
LE
M
O
N
S
T
LE
M
O
N
S
T
CL
A
U
D
I
N
A
S
T
CL
A
U
D
I
N
A
S
T
PROJECT
LOCATION
PH
I
L
A
D
E
L
P
H
I
A
S
T
PH
I
L
A
D
E
L
P
H
I
A
S
T
ELM STELM ST
LEGEND
- Packing District (Private) Parking
- Public Parking
- On-Street Parking
- Percent of Parking Utilized (in Red)
Lot 6Lot 6Lot 5Lot 5
Lot 1Lot 1
Lot 7Lot 7
Lot 8Lot 8
Lot 3Lot 3
Lot 2
(Temporary)
Lot 2
(Temporary)
Lot 4Lot 4
FIGURE 7c
Parking Utilization - Dinner PeakSOURCE: Google Earth
FEET
2801400
N
I:\AHM1502\G\Utilization-Dinner Peak.cdr (6/4/15)
MAKE Building
BROADWAYBROADWAY
SANTA ANA STSANTA ANA ST
OAK STOAK ST
AN
A
H
E
I
M
B
L
V
D
AN
A
H
E
I
M
B
L
V
D
LE
M
O
N
S
T
LE
M
O
N
S
T
CL
A
U
D
I
N
A
S
T
CL
A
U
D
I
N
A
S
T
PROJECT
LOCATION
PH
I
L
A
D
E
L
P
H
I
A
S
T
PH
I
L
A
D
E
L
P
H
I
A
S
T
ELM STELM ST
LEGEND
- Packing District (Private) Parking
- Public Parking
- On-Street Parking
- Percent of Parking Utilized (in Red)
Lot 6Lot 6Lot 5Lot 5
Lot 1Lot 1
Lot 7Lot 7
Lot 8Lot 8
Lot 3Lot 3
Lot 2
(Temporary)
Lot 2
(Temporary)
Lot 4Lot 4
L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .
J U N E 2 0 1 5J U N E 2 0 1 5J U N E 2 0 1 5J U N E 2 0 1 5
P A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T PP A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T PP A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T PP A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T P L A NL A NL A NL A N
C E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B UC E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B UC E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B UC E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B U I L D I N GI L D I N GI L D I N GI L D I N G
C I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A LC I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A LC I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A LC I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A L I F O R N I AI F O R N I AI F O R N I AI F O R N I A
P:\AHM1502\Report\MAKE Building Parking Study6.docx «06/10/15» 20
and availability during the evening peak hour, when parking demand for the Packing House appears
to have another peak. The MAKE Building is expected to have high parking demand in the evening
as well. As Table E shows, Lots 5, 6, 7, and 8 have significant parking available during each of the
existing periods of peak demand.
Table E: Parking Utilization in Public Parking Structures
Location Measured Parking Supply Observed Demand Parking Utilized Parking Spaces Available
Lunch Time Peak (1:00 p.m.)
Lot 5 750 314 42% 436
Lot 6 428 116 34% 312
Lot 7 405 76 28% 329
Lot 8 40 13 50% 27
Total 1,623 519 32% 1,104
Afternoon Peak (3:00 p.m.)
Lot 5 750 294 39% 456
Lot 6 428 145 34% 283
Lot 7 405 87 21% 318
Lot 8 40 15 38% 25
Total 1,623 541 33% 1,082
Dinner Peak (6:00 p.m.)
Lot 5 750 288 38% 462
Lot 6 428 138 32% 290
Lot 7 405 77 19% 328
Lot 8 40 20 50% 20
Total 1,623 523 32% 1,100
Evening Peak (9:00 p.m.)
Lot 5 750 180 24% 570
Lot 6 428 128 30% 300
Lot 7 405 114 28% 291
Lot 8 40 20 50% 20
Total 1,623 442 27% 1,181
It should be noted that later this year, Lot 5 will be used by employees of the St. Joseph Medical
Center office at 200 West Center Street. However, their primary hours are 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and
would not conflict with the peak hours for the Packing District or the MAKE Building.
Patrons of the MAKE Building will not be required to park in any particular parking lot. All visitors
to Center City will have equal access to the parking resources of Center City. As such, some patrons
of the MAKE Building may park on the street or in Lots 2, 3, or 4, which are in close proximity to the
MAKE Building. Because some of these lots already reach capacity, these vehicles may displace
vehicles parked for other Center City businesses. Additional parking spaces are available for the
displaced vehicles, even if additional parking is not available in some lots. Ultimately, operation of
the proposed MAKE Building will result in a cumulative 131-vehicle increase in parking demand in
lots where parking is currently available. In each lot, passengers of the parked vehicles will have a
mixture of destinations. The four parking lots detailed in Table E have the capacity remaining to
accommodate the additional vehicles.
L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .
J U N E 2 0 1 5J U N E 2 0 1 5J U N E 2 0 1 5J U N E 2 0 1 5
P A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T PP A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T PP A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T PP A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T P L A NL A NL A NL A N
C E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B UC E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B UC E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B UC E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B U I L D I N GI L D I N GI L D I N GI L D I N G
C I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A LC I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A LC I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A LC I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A L I F O R N I AI F O R N I AI F O R N I AI F O R N I A
P:\AHM1502\Report\MAKE Building Parking Study6.docx «06/10/15» 21
Project Contribution and Potential Impact
Based on the City parking requirements, the MAKE Building would require 131 off-street parking
spaces. Although the proposed project provides only handicap parking adjacent to the main building,
Center City has other off-street parking lots that are not fully utilized and are capable of absorbing the
additional demand.
Table C had previously displayed the observed parking demand throughout the day within the study
area. Table F shows the effects of the project during four periods of peak demand: lunch, afternoon,
dinner, and evening. Without Lot 2 (which is temporarily used for valet parking) the total off-street
parking supply within the study area is 1,797 parking spaces. The project is expected to generate
demand for 7 percent of those spaces.
Table F: Off-Street Parking Utilization Without and With MAKE Building
Location
Parking
Supply
Existing Demand
Without Project
Parking Utilized
Without Project
Future Demand
With Project
Parking Utilization
With Project
Lunch Time Peak (1:00 p.m.) 1,797 732 41% 863 48%
Afternoon Peak (3:00 p.m.) 1,797 736 41% 867 48%
Dinner Peak (6:00 p.m.) 1,797 729 41% 860 48%
Evening Peak (9:00 p.m.) 1,797 665 37% 796 44%
Table F shows that the public parking lots have sufficient parking available to accommodate the 131
additional parking spaces generated by the MAKE Building. It is believed that some MAKE Building
visitors will also be visitors of the Packing District, and total new parking demand may be less due to
this internal capture. With implementation of the project, parking utilization is still expected to
remain below 50 percent during each of the peak periods. As such, no parking impacts to Center
City’s shared parking resources are anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
Vehicles parking in Lots 1, 3, or 4 would require a short walk to the MAKE Building while parking
in Lots 5, 6, 7, or 8 would require a longer walk. Figure 8 shows the walking distances from these
farther parking lots to the proposed MAKE Building. The distances range from 0.18 mile to 0.29
mile. The following section discusses the walking experience from these lots to the MAKE Building.
WALKABILITY
Center City Walking Experience
The Greater Downtown of Anaheim Guide for Development (City of Anaheim, December 2007)
states that future development should include a pedestrian friendly, walkable environment. It
specifically targets walkable connections between greater downtown and the surrounding
neighborhoods for improvement. In recent years, much research has been conducted with the goal of
identifying how to encourage and support walking as a mode of transportation. The Congress for New
Urbanism has conducted some of this research related to pedestrian catchment areas (i.e., acceptable
walking distance). Often-cited statistics identify that the average person is willing to walk for
5 minutes to reach their destination from a residence or office in a neighborhood or town center. A
10-minute walk has been found to be typical from a major transportation hub such as a rail station.
FIGURE 8
Distance from Proposed Project to Public Parking LocationsSOURCE: Google Earth
FEET
2801400
N
I:\AHM1502\G\Parking Distances.cdr (4/22/15)
MAKE Building
BROADWAYBROADWAY
SANTA ANA STSANTA ANA ST
OAK STOAK ST
AN
A
H
E
I
M
B
L
V
D
AN
A
H
E
I
M
B
L
V
D
LE
M
O
N
S
T
LE
M
O
N
S
T
CL
A
U
D
I
N
A
S
T
CL
A
U
D
I
N
A
S
T
PROJECT
LOCATION
Public
Parking
Public
Parking
Public
Parking
Public
Parking
Public
Parking
Public
Parking
Public
Parking
Public
Parking
ELM STELM ST
1
,
3
9
0
f
t
=
0
.
2
6
m
i
l
e
s
1
,
3
9
0
f
t
=
0
.
2
6
m
i
l
e
s
1,1
7
5
f
t
=
0
.
2
2
m
i
l
e
s
1,1
7
5
f
t
=
0
.
2
2
m
i
l
e
s
95
0
f
t
=
0
.
1
8
m
i
l
e
s
95
0
f
t
=
0
.
1
8
m
i
l
e
s
1
,
5
5
0
f
t
=
0
.
2
9
m
i
l
e
s
1
,
5
5
0
f
t
=
0
.
2
9
m
i
l
e
s
L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .
J U N E 2 0 1 5J U N E 2 0 1 5J U N E 2 0 1 5J U N E 2 0 1 5
P A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T PP A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T PP A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T PP A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T P L A NL A NL A NL A N
C E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B UC E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B UC E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B UC E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B U I L D I N GI L D I N GI L D I N GI L D I N G
C I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A LC I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A LC I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A LC I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A L I F O R N I AI F O R N I AI F O R N I AI F O R N I A
P:\AHM1502\Report\MAKE Building Parking Study6.docx «06/10/15» 23
These times are used as rules of thumb. Several factors can support or deter walking. For example,
someone traveling to the grocery store and returning with several bags would not be willing to walk
as far as someone traveling unladen. Environmental factors affecting walkability include width and
maintenance of sidewalks, presence of a landscaping or parking buffer between vehicles and
pedestrians, the ease of street crossings, the proximity of building entrances to the street, the presence
of other pedestrians, and the general interest of the walk.
The Greater Downtown of Anaheim Guide for Development establishes some of these goals for
Center City. One of the themes carried throughout the guide is the desire for walkable connections to
be extended through the greater downtown. This would be accomplished by widening sidewalks and
connecting landscaping themes along pedestrian corridors. The guide includes buildings in the
walking environment stating that retail/commercial should be strategically located at key intersections
to help establish the character of an area. Street furniture also establishes character and reinforces
walkability. The guide illustrates uniform street furniture for the greater downtown. Most important,
however, are the goals of separating pedestrians from vehicles,
providing parklike landscaping, and limiting crossing distance at
intersections. If these elements of the streetscape are present, then
mixed-use development can reduce reliance on vehicles and increase
merchant activity through increased pedestrian activity.
Center City is an evolving area that already has many aspects of a
walkable environment. Sidewalks along Center Street Promenade and
Anaheim Boulevard have been widened as redevelopment has occurred
along those streets. The sidewalks are without major cracks or lifting,
allowing everybody to use them safely. Landscape and parallel parking
separates vehicles from pedestrians. The historic Packing House,
Packard Building, and MAKE Building are in their original positions,
located directly on the street. New residential development has also
been designed with minimal setbacks. Limiting the walking distance from the sidewalk to the
buildings in this manner is a benefit to pedestrians originating at or walking to one of these buildings
and also enhances both the street’s character and the visual interest of the walk for those passing by.
Center City Walking Surveys
LSA surveyed walking distances and times from Lot 6, Lot 7, and Lot 8 to the MAKE Building. Lot 5
was not surveyed because surveys of existing parking demand revealed that sufficient parking
remains available in Lot 6 and visitors would not have to continue to the farther parking lot. Walking
times were tested from mid-morning to mid-afternoon on Saturday, April 4. Multiple paths were
tested varying crosswalks and roadways used.
The shortest walking time from Lots 7 and 8 resulted from crossing Broadway at 42nd Street-Claudina
Street. However, crossing at this location presents a hazard to pedestrians, and the City is installing
railings and “No Crossing” signs to discourage pedestrian crossings at this intersection. Pedestrians
will be directed to cross Broadway at the signalized intersection of Anaheim Boulevard/Broadway.
The survey results presented in Table G use this intersection to cross Broadway. Figure 9 provides a
summary of travel paths tested. Five paths are possible from the three parking lots with ample
available parking. The distance to Lot 8, the surface parking lot south of City Hall, is the shortest at
BROADWAYBROADWAY
SANTA ANA STSANTA ANA ST
AN
A
H
E
I
M
B
L
V
D
AN
A
H
E
I
M
B
L
V
D
PROJECT
LOCATION
Existing Public
Parking Structure
Existing Public
Parking Structure
Existing
Public
Parking
Structure
Existing
Public
Surface
Parking LotW. CENTER STREET
PROMENADE
W. CENTER STREET
PROMENADE
Lot 6Lot 6Lot 5Lot 5
Lot 7Lot 7
Lot 8Lot 8
FIGURE 9
Pedestrian RoutesSCHEMATIC - NOT TO SCALE
N
I:\AHM1502\G\Pedestrian Routes.cdr (6/10/15)
MAKE Building
485’ > 2 Min.485’ > 2 Min.
Route A
- Distance: 0.29 mi. (1,530 ft.)
- Average Walk Time: 6:20 min.
Route B
- Distance: 0.23 mi. (1,225 ft.)
- Average Walk Time: 5:20 min.
Route C
- Distance: 0.33 mi. (1,750 ft.)
- Average Walk Time: 6:30 min.
Route D
- Distance: 0.33 mi. (1,750 ft.)
- Average Walk Time: 6:53 min.
Route E
- Distance: 0.33 mi. (1,750 ft.)
- Average Walk Time: 8:27 min.
L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .
J U N E 2 0 1 5J U N E 2 0 1 5J U N E 2 0 1 5J U N E 2 0 1 5
P A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T PP A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T PP A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T PP A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T P L A NL A NL A NL A N
C E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B UC E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B UC E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B UC E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B U I L D I N GI L D I N GI L D I N GI L D I N G
C I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A LC I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A LC I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A LC I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A L I F O R N I AI F O R N I AI F O R N I AI F O R N I A
P:\AHM1502\Report\MAKE Building Parking Study6.docx «06/10/15» 25
approximately 0.23 mile. At a moderate walking pace and accounting for waiting for pedestrian walk
signals at the intersections of Anaheim Boulevard/Broadway and Anaheim Boulevard/Santa Ana
Street, the time required to reach the MAKE Building was 5 minutes, 20 seconds on average. The
distance to Lot 7, the parking structure east of City Hall, is approximately
0.29 mile. At a moderate walking pace and waiting for the same pedestrian signals, the time required
to reach the MAKE Building was 6 minutes, 20 seconds on average.
Three routes are possible from Lot 6, the
eastern parking structure on Center Street
Promenade. This parking lot is located
approximately 0.33 mile from the
MAKE Building regardless of the route.
Walking between Lot 6 and the MAKE
Building could require waiting at up to
four traffic signals. The route labeled
Route D on Figure 9 eliminates one of
these crossings because it crosses Center
Street Promenade opposite the T-
intersection. Each pedestrian signal can
add significantly to the total walking time, particularly when one has to wait an entire cycle for a walk
signal. During one timed walk, long wait times were required at all four intersections resulting in a
total time of 8 minutes, 27 seconds. On average, however, walking times were shorter (i.e., 6 minutes,
30 seconds).
Comparison to Other Similar Sites
For the last 60 years, suburban commercial development has been typical in Orange County. In this
style of development, off-street parking is provided for each individual development on the same
parcel as the main building of the development. That type of development creates plentiful,
convenient parking for people driving to grocery stores and other everyday commercial needs.
However, developments attracting a large number of patrons for commercial and social entertainment
locate the necessary parking spaces in areas adjacent to the use that may result in longer walk times to
the offerings. Even when all of the necessary parking is located adjacent to the development, walking
distances and times are similar to those surveyed for Center City. Three examples are discussed in
this report.
1. Downtown Disney: Downtown Disney contains a variety of restaurants, stores, and
entertainment that serves guests at Anaheim Resort hotels and is a regional attraction for residents
of Orange County. For visitors driving to Downtown Disney, a parking lot is located adjacent to
the western end of this development. LSA visited Downtown Disney and surveyed walking times
from the center of the parking lot to the Catal restaurant. The location of this restaurant relative to
the parking lot serving is illustrated on Figure 10. As shown on Figure 10, the restaurant is
located approximately 0.30 mile from a parking space on average. Walking that distance required
6 minutes, 12 seconds. The same parking lot serves the World of Disney store. Figure 10 also
illustrates the location of that store, which is located approximately 0.38 mile from a parking
space on average. Walking that distance required 8 minutes, 15 seconds.
Table G: Summary of Surveyed Walking
Distances and Times to MAKE Building
Parking Lot
Walking
Distance
Average Walking
Time
Lot 7 – Route A 0.29 mile 6 minutes, 20 seconds
Lot 8 – Route B 0.23 mile 5 minutes, 20 seconds
Lot 6 – Route C 0.33 mile 6 minutes, 30 seconds
Lot 6 – Route D 0.33 mile 6 minutes, 53 seconds
Lot 6 – Route E 0.33 mile 8 minutes, 27 seconds
Lot 6– Overall Average 0.33 mile 7 minutes, 7 seconds
FIGURE 10
Av
e
r
a
g
e
W
a
l
k
T
i
m
e
s
-
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
D
i
s
n
e
y
SO
U
R
C
E
:
G
o
o
g
l
e
E
a
r
t
h
FE
E
T
20
0
10
0
0 I:\
A
H
M
1
5
0
2
\
G
\
W
a
l
k
T
i
m
e
s
-
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
D
i
s
n
e
y
.
c
d
r
(
5
/
6
/
1
5
)
MAKE Building
D
I
S
N
E
Y
L
A
N
D
D
R
D
I
S
N
E
Y
L
A
N
D
D
R
N
ES
P
N
Zo
n
e
ES
P
N
Zo
n
e
Ra
i
n
f
o
r
e
s
t
Ca
f
e
Ra
i
n
f
o
r
e
s
t
Ca
f
e
AM
C
Th
e
a
t
e
r
AM
C
Th
e
a
t
e
r
Ho
u
s
e
of
B
l
u
e
s
Ho
u
s
e
of
B
l
u
e
s
Ca
t
a
l
Re
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
Ca
t
a
l
Re
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
Wo
r
l
d
of
D
i
s
n
e
y
Wo
r
l
d
of
D
i
s
n
e
y
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
D
i
s
n
e
y
Mi
d
-
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
L
o
t
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
D
i
s
n
e
y
Mi
d
-
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
L
o
t
Ro
u
t
e
B
-
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
:
0
.
3
8
m
i
.
-
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
W
a
l
k
T
i
m
e
:
8
:
1
5
m
i
n
.
Ro
u
t
e
A
-
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
:
0
.
3
0
m
i
.
-
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
W
a
l
k
T
i
m
e
:
6
:
1
2
m
i
n
.
L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .
J U N E 2 0 1 5J U N E 2 0 1 5J U N E 2 0 1 5J U N E 2 0 1 5
P A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T PP A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T PP A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T PP A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T P L A NL A NL A NL A N
C E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B UC E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B UC E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B UC E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B U I L D I N GI L D I N GI L D I N GI L D I N G
C I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A LC I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A LC I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A LC I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A L I F O R N I AI F O R N I AI F O R N I AI F O R N I A
P:\AHM1502\Report\MAKE Building Parking Study6.docx «06/10/15» 27
2. South Coast Plaza: South Coast Plaza is a regional commercial center that also attracts a large
number of locals and tourists visiting Orange County. As is typical for a shopping mall, the
buildings are located in the center of a large parcel and are surrounded by parking. Parking is
provided in a mix of structured and surface parking. A pedestrian bridge is provided for
customers traveling between the original South Coast Plaza development and the Crystal Court
located west of Bear Street. Figure 11 illustrates two routes through South Coast Plaza that were
measured and timed. The first route tested a trip where a customer parks in the north parking
structure and visits both Nordstrom and Bloomingdale’s. This route was measured at
approximately 0.32 mile and required 6 minutes, 40 seconds, to walk. The second route tested a
second trip where a customer parks in the south parking structure and visits a variety of stores,
including the Apple Store. This route was measured at approximately 0.34 mile and required
7 minutes, 12 seconds, to walk.
3. Brea Mall: The Brea Mall is a significant regional commercial development that serves many
communities in north Orange County. Again, the main building is located in the center of a large
parcel, and parking surrounds the building in a combination of surface and structured parking.
Figure 12 illustrates two routes through the Brea Mall that were measured and timed. The first
route is a trip where the visitor parked in a surface parking lot located off the State College
Boulevard entrance. In this trip, the customer visits Sears and the Macy’s home store. This route
was measured at approximately 0.24 mile and required 5 minutes, 24 seconds to walk. The
second route is a trip where the visitor parked in the west parking structure and visits both
Nordstrom and Macy’s. This route was measured at approximately 0.22 mile and required 4
minutes, 45 seconds, to walk.
These are three examples of commercial development that attract customers based on social
entertainment as well as retail stores. All three sites are in close proximity to Center City and have
large parking lots located adjacent to the main buildings. Table H summarizes the survey results.
Even with parking located adjacent to the main buildings, a typical patron would walk between 0.22
mile and 0.38 mile from a parking space to their destination. Walking times at the surveyed sites
ranged from 4 minutes, 45 seconds, to
8 minutes, 15 seconds. For the
MAKE Building within Center City,
walking from the available off-site
parking spaces to the main building
would require similar distance and
time. LSA believes that the proposed
walking distance and time are
acceptable in part because it is usual
for visits to locations offering
commercial and social entertainment
to include this amount of walking
from parking.
Table H: Summary of Surveyed Walking Distances
and Times at Similar Areas
Site
Walking
Distance (mile)
Average Walking
Time
Downtown Disney – Route A 0.30 6 minutes, 12 seconds
Downtown Disney – Route B 0.38 8 minutes, 15 seconds
South Coast Plaza – Route A 0.32 6 minutes, 40 seconds
South Coast Plaza – Route B 0.34 7 minutes, 12 seconds
Brea Mall – Route A 0.24 5 minutes, 24 seconds
Brea Mall – Route B 0.22 4 minutes, 45 seconds
FIGURE 11
Av
e
r
a
g
e
W
a
l
k
T
i
m
e
s
-
S
o
u
t
h
C
o
a
s
t
P
l
a
z
a
SO
U
R
C
E
:
G
o
o
g
l
e
E
a
r
t
h
FE
E
T
35
0
17
5
0 I:\
A
H
M
1
5
0
2
\
G
\
W
a
l
k
T
i
m
e
s
-
S
o
u
t
h
C
o
a
s
t
P
l
a
z
a
.
c
d
r
(
5
/
6
/
1
5
)
MAKE Building
N
No
r
d
s
t
r
o
m
No
r
d
s
t
r
o
m
Ap
p
l
e
St
o
r
e
Ap
p
l
e
St
o
r
e
Bl
o
o
m
i
n
g
d
a
l
e
’
s
Bl
o
o
m
i
n
g
d
a
l
e
’
s
No
r
t
h
P ar
k
i
n
g
St
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
No
r
t
h
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
St
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
So
u
t
h
P ar
k
i
n
g
St
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
So
u
t
h
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
St
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
Ro
u
t
e
A
-
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
:
0
.
3
2
m
i
.
-
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
W
a
l
k
T
i
m
e
:
6
:
4
0
m
i
n
.
Ro
u
t
e
B
-
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
:
0
.
3
4
m
i
.
-
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
W
a
l
k
T
i
m
e
:
7
:
1
2
m
i
n
.
FIGURE 12 Average
W
a
l
k
T
i
m
e
s
-
B
r
e
a
M
a
l
l
SO
U
R
C
E
:
G
o
o
g
l
e
E
a
r
t
h
FE
E
T
26
0
13
0
0 I:\
A
H
M
1
5
0
2
\
G
\
W
a
l
k
T
i
m
e
s
-
B
r
e
a
M
a
l
l
.
c
d
r
(
4
/
2
2
/
1
5
)
MAKE Building
N
No
r
d
s
t
r
o
m
No
r
d
s
t
r
o
m
JC
P
e
n
n
e
y
JC
P
e
n
n
e
y
Se
a
r
s
Se
a
r
s
Ma
c
y
’
s
Ho
m
e
Ma
c
y
’
s
Ho
m
e
Ma
c
y
’
s
Ma
c
y
’
s
We
s
t
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
St
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
We
s
t
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
St
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
Ro
u
t
e
A
-
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
:
0
.
2
4
m
i
.
-
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
W
a
l
k
T
i
m
e
:
5
:
2
4
m
i
n
.
Ro
u
t
e
B
-
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
:
0
.
2
2
m
i
.
-
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
W
a
l
k
T
i
m
e
:
4
:
4
5
m
i
n
.
L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .
J U N E 2 0 1 5J U N E 2 0 1 5J U N E 2 0 1 5J U N E 2 0 1 5
P A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T PP A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T PP A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T PP A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T P L A NL A NL A NL A N
C E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B UC E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B UC E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B UC E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B U I L D I N GI L D I N GI L D I N GI L D I N G
C I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A LC I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A LC I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A LC I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A L I F O R N I AI F O R N I AI F O R N I AI F O R N I A
P:\AHM1502\Report\MAKE Building Parking Study6.docx «06/10/15» 30
Walkability Conclusions
With a range from 5 minutes, 20 seconds, to 8 minutes, 27 seconds, walking times from the parking
lots with the most available parking to the MAKE Building slightly exceed the often-cited 5-minute
walk. However, a 10-minute walk has been found to be common from a transportation hub (i.e., acti
vity node), and the surveyed walking times are within that parameter. In addition, walking times for
nearby commercial and social entertainment developments were found to range from 4 minutes, 45
seconds, to 8 minutes, 15 seconds. Walking from parking to a destination within these existing
developments often takes more than 5 minutes, but the distances are acceptable to patrons.
TROLLEY SERVICES
The Packing District plans to operate a free shuttle within Center City to shorten
the walking distance from available parking spaces and to expose Packing District
patrons to other Center City offerings. The shuttle will take the form of an open air
trolley bus. The trolley can hold 24 passengers and will be similar in appearance to
historic streetcars. At this time, the trolley is anticipated to run on Fridays and
Saturdays from 12:00 p.m. to midnight
and on Sundays from 12:00 p.m. to
9:00 p.m. These are currently the
periods of highest parking demand for
the Packing District.
The route planned for the trolley
includes stops near Lot 6, the Rinks
Anaheim Ice (ice skating rink), the
Lemon Street/Center Street Promenade,
the Muzeo, and the Packing House
back patio. Completing this loop is
expected to require 15 minutes. The
Packing House back patio stop will be located approximately 350 feet from the
MAKE Building entrance, which would require less than 2 minutes to walk. The
service will be free and has the potential to attract riders that are unwilling to pay
for parking or to walk from the abundant available parking spaces in the existing
parking structures.
Patrons of the Packing District and the MAKE Building will directly benefit from a reduced walk
time between available parking spaces and their destination. As an added benefit, operation of the
trolley is anticipated to improve circulation within Center City. In areas with parking constraints,
many of the vehicles on the roadway network are not
in the process of traveling from their origin to their
destination, but instead are searching for a parking
space near their destination. The search for parking
increases the visitor’s total travel time and adds
unproductive congestion. A vehicle searching for
parking can add several trips to the roadways as one
parking area is searched and then another. With the
trolley service in place, some visitors that would have
L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .
J U N E 2 0 1 5J U N E 2 0 1 5J U N E 2 0 1 5J U N E 2 0 1 5
P A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T PP A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T PP A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T PP A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T P L A NL A NL A NL A N
C E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B UC E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B UC E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B UC E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B U I L D I N GI L D I N GI L D I N GI L D I N G
C I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A LC I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A LC I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A LC I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A L I F O R N I AI F O R N I AI F O R N I AI F O R N I A
P:\AHM1502\Report\MAKE Building Parking Study6.docx «06/10/15» 31
chosen to drive around looking for parking will drive directly to the Lot 6 parking structure. Each
vehicle that travels directly to the Lot 6 parking structure eliminates multiple trips from the local
roadways. The trolley will allow Center City to efficiently use all of its parking resources while
potentially also reducing congestion.
The future trolley stop on Center Street Promenade at the Muzeo sign is the last trolley stop before
the trolley reaches the Packing House back patio. This stop is also directly across Center Street
Promenade from the stairs and elevators leading down from the visitor parking decks of Lot 6. People
parking in Lot 6 who are on their way to the Packing House or MAKE Building are likely to cross
Center Street Promenade to this trolley stop rather than using the trolley stop on the north side of the
street, which would make three more stops before reaching the Packing House. Even today without a
trolley stop, pedestrians cross Center Street Promenade in this vicinity instead of waiting for a
crossing signal at the Anaheim Boulevard intersection. LSA recommends that the trolley stop not
block the drop curb near the Muzeo sign.
WAYFINDING SIGNAGE
In addition to the above-mentioned trolley service being proposed by the Packing District operator,
the City plans to implement a comprehensive wayfinding signage program for Center City in time for
the MAKE Building opening. The wayfinding signage will establish a series of pedestrian and
vehicular linkages between the Packing District and the public parking structures in Center City. The
signage will provide more simplified and consistent signs that would direct significant numbers of
Center City patrons to the public parking structures. The City and the Packing District owner/operator
will also utilize various websites and social media to direct visitor traffic to these public structures.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusion
The proposed MAKE Building project is a renovation and reuse project that will convert a vacant
radiator repair shop to a 13,790 sf commercial/retail establishment. According to the AMC, the
MAKE Building would require 131 off-street parking spaces that should be located on the same
parcel as the main building, on a parcel adjacent to that parcel, or within close proximity to the lot.
Although the MAKE Building proposes to provide only handicap parking adjacent to the site,
adequate off-street parking is available within Center City to accommodate the additional parking
demand.
Parking supply in the private lots and on-street parking nearest the Packing District is limited in the
existing conditions. However, ample and adequate parking is provided within public off-street
parking lots. The parking supply available to MAKE Building patrons is a total of 1,797 parking
spaces, of which about 40 percent are utilized during the periods when the MAKE Building will
experience its highest parking demand. The MAKE Building would increase parking utilization by
approximately 7 percent, and over 50 percent of the parking spaces would remain available in the
public parking lots. Since many of the MAKE Building visitors will already be visiting the Packing
District, the total increase in parking demand could be less when accounting for this internal capture.
L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .
J U N E 2 0 1 5J U N E 2 0 1 5J U N E 2 0 1 5J U N E 2 0 1 5
P A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T PP A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T PP A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T PP A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T P L A NL A NL A NL A N
C E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B UC E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B UC E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B UC E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B U I L D I N GI L D I N GI L D I N GI L D I N G
C I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A LC I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A LC I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A LC I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A L I F O R N I AI F O R N I AI F O R N I AI F O R N I A
P:\AHM1502\Report\MAKE Building Parking Study6.docx «06/10/15» 32
Walking distances and times from the public parking lots to the MAKE Building were measured and
found to be between 0.23 mile and 0.33 mile, requiring from 5 minutes, 20 seconds, to 8 minutes,
27 seconds, depending on the parking lot and duration of wait times at pedestrian signals. Similar
sites offering commercial and social entertainment were surveyed, and similar distances (0.22 mile to
0.38 mile) and walking times (4 minutes, 45 seconds, to 8 minutes, 15 seconds) were required on
average between parking spaces and destinations.
For visitors who choose not to walk but also do not want to circulate while looking for a parking
space, a trolley service will be operated in Center City between the underutilized parking lots on
Center Street Promenade and the Packing District. A trolley stop will be located approximately 350
feet from the MAKE Building entrance, which would require less than 2 minutes to walk.
Given the similar walking distances and times at similar surveyed sites and the future operation of a
trolley from parking lots with available parking spaces, LSA believes that the shared parking
resources of Center City are within reasonable walking distance and close proximity to the MAKE
Building. The MAKE Building can be served by all of the parking lots in the study area. Lot 6, the
parking structure on Center Street Promenade, has sufficient parking to accommodate the MAKE
Building parking demand. The walking distance from Lot 6 is acceptable and will be further
supported by the proposed trolley. Lot 5 will also be supported by the proposed trolley and is less
than an additional 2-minute walk from Lot 6.
Recommendations
Recommendations made in this report include:
• Keeping clear the drop curb at the Muzeo sign trolley stop; and
• Implementing a comprehensive wayfinding signage program to establish linkages between the
Packing District and the public parking structures in Center City.
L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .
J U N E 2 0 1 5J U N E 2 0 1 5J U N E 2 0 1 5J U N E 2 0 1 5
P A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T PP A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T PP A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T PP A R K I N G M A N A G E M E N T P L A NL A NL A NL A N
C E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B UC E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B UC E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B UC E N T E R C I T Y : M A K E B U I L D I N GI L D I N GI L D I N GI L D I N G
C I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A LC I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A LC I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A LC I T Y O F A N A H E I M , C A L I F O R N I AI F O R N I AI F O R N I AI F O R N I A
P:\AHM1502\Report\MAKE Building Parking Study6.docx «06/10/15»
APPENDIX A
PARKING ACCUMULATION DATA
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
#
:
15
-
1
0
8
5
Day:Saturday
Cit
y
:
An
a
h
e
i
m
Date:4/4/2015
LE
V
E
L
B
Re
g
u
l
a
r
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
Em
p
l
o
y
e
e
As
s
i
g
n
e
d
Ca
r
p
o
o
l
O
n
l
y
Re
g
u
l
a
r
L
o
a
d
i
n
g
H
C
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
H
C
V
a
n
p
o
o
l
M
o
t
o
r
c
y
c
l
e
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
H
C
R
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
H
C
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
H
C
R
E
G
U
L
A
R
H
C
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
H
C
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
H
C
V
a
n
p
o
o
l
Sp
a
c
e
s
67
92
16
46
2
3
1
94
4
1
10
8
1
10
9
2
10
9
2 110 3 1 771
10
:
0
0
A
M
6
39
0
45
0
2
0
0
80
2
0
77
0
19
0
0
0 0 0 0 270
11
:
0
0
A
M
9
47
0
45
0
2
0
0
85
0
1
78
0
19
0
0
0 0 0 0 286
12
:
0
0
P
M
11
44
0
40
0
2
0
0
91
0
1
96
0
24
0
0
0 0 0 0 309
1:
0
0
P
M
12
42
0
40
0
1
0
0
92
1
1
97
0
26
0
2
0 0 0 0 314
2:
0
0
P
M
11
39
1
37
0
1
0
0
84
2
1
64
0
15
0
2
0 0 0 0 257
3:
0
0
P
M
13
37
1
38
0
3
1
0
94
1
0
91
0
13
0
2
0 0 0 0 294
4:
0
0
P
M
12
32
1
29
0
3
1
0
89
0
1
90
0
14
0
2
0 0 0 0 274
5:
0
0
P
M
11
25
1
26
1
3
1
1
84
0
1
89
0
16
0
2
0 0 0 0 261
6:
0
0
P
M
11
25
1
19
0
3
1
1
94
1
1
10
3
0
26
0
2
0 0 0 0 288
7:
0
0
P
M
9
16
1
14
0
3
1
0
88
1
1
85
0
27
0
2
0 0 0 0 248
8:
0
0
P
M
2
4
0
5
0
3
0
0
78
0
1
69
0
24
0
2
0 0 0 0 188
9:
0
0
P
M
0
0
0
5
0
1
0
0
77
0
1
75
0
19
0
2
0 0 0 0 180
10
:
0
0
P
M
0
0
0
7
0
1
0
0
69
0
1
74
0
21
0
3
0 0 0 0 176
11
:
0
0
P
M
0
0
0
5
0
1
0
0
61
0
1
69
0
17
0
3
0 0 0 0 157
12
:
0
0
A
M
0
0
0
5
0
1
0
0
61
0
0
69
0
17
0
3
0 0 0 0 156
No
t
e
s
:
2-
h
r
m
a
x
i
m
u
m
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
f
o
r
l
e
v
e
l
s
1
&
2
o
n
l
y
Pre
p
a
r
e
d
b
y
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
D
a
t
a
&
S
u
r
v
e
y
i
n
g
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
PA
R
K
I
N
G
S
T
U
D
Y
LO
T
1
TOTAL
TIM
E
LEVEL 6
LE
V
E
L
A
LE
V
E
L
1
LE
V
E
L
2
LE
V
E
L
3
LE
V
E
L
4
LE
V
E
L
5
Pro
j
e
c
t
#
:
15
-
1
0
8
5
Day:Saturday
Cit
y
:
An
a
h
e
i
m
Date:4/4/2015
Re
g
u
l
a
r
Ele
c
t
r
i
c
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
O
n
l
y
Uti
l
i
t
i
e
s
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
P
o
o
l
Se
c
u
r
i
t
y
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
O
n
l
y
Re
s
e
r
v
e
d
H
C
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
Ov
e
r
s
i
z
e
d
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
Mo
t
o
r
c
y
c
l
e
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
Of
f
i
c
e
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
EV
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
On
l
y
HC
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
H
C
V
a
n
p
o
o
l
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
Ca
r
p
o
o
l
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
Ov
e
r
s
i
z
e
d
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
HC
M
o
t
o
r
c
y
c
l
e
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
H
C
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
H
C
V
a
n
p
o
o
l
Ov
e
r
s
i
z
e
d
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
EV
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
On
l
y
RegularOversized VehicleHC
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
Oversized Vehicle
Sp
a
c
e
s
43
4
10
1
7
2
99
4
44
1
3
4
2
42
31
9
3
97
3
1
3
5
102 3 4 106 8 641
10
:
0
0
A
M
38
4
8
0
0
0
8
1
0
12
0
0
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
4 0 0 0 0 91
11
:
0
0
A
M
38
4
8
0
0
0
9
1
0
10
0
1
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
6 0 0 0 0 95
12
:
0
0
P
M
38
4
8
0
0
0
9
1
0
15
0
1
2
0
15
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
3 0 0 0 0 105
1:0
0
P
M
38
4
8
0
0
0
11
1
0
16
0
2
2
0
20
0
0
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
3 0 0 0 0 116
2:0
0
P
M
38
4
8
0
0
0
10
1
0
17
0
0
2
0
25
0
0
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
3 0 0 0 0 119
3:0
0
P
M
35
4
8
0
0
0
41
1
0
14
0
1
1
0
26
0
0
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
3 0 0 0 0 145
4:0
0
P
M
33
4
8
0
0
0
41
1
0
15
0
2
1
1
25
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
2 0 0 0 0 145
5:0
0
P
M
33
4
8
0
0
0
41
1
0
15
0
2
1
1
23
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
2 0 0 2 0 145
6:0
0
P
M
33
4
8
0
0
0
39
1
0
16
0
2
1
1
15
0
0
0
0
14
0
0
0
0
2 0 0 2 0 138
7:0
0
P
M
33
4
8
0
0
0
38
1
0
14
0
2
1
1
16
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
2 0 0 2 0 132
8:0
0
P
M
33
4
8
0
0
0
37
1
0
17
0
1
0
0
19
0
0
0
0
14
0
0
0
0
1 0 0 0 0 135
9:0
0
P
M
33
4
8
0
0
0
37
1
0
13
0
1
0
0
17
0
0
0
0
13
0
0
0
0
1 0 0 0 0 128
10
:
0
0
P
M
33
4
8
0
0
0
37
1
0
9
0
0
1
0
12
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
1 0 0 0 0 111
11
:
0
0
P
M
33
4
8
0
0
0
37
1
0
10
0
0
1
0
8
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
1 0 0 0 0 109
12
:
0
0
A
M
33
4
8
0
0
0
37
1
0
7
0
1
1
0
7
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
1 0 0 0 0 105
No
t
e
s
:
Re
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
A
r
e
a
C
i
t
y
o
f
A
n
a
h
e
i
m
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
d
i
s
p
l
a
y
i
n
g
P
u
r
p
l
e
H
a
n
g
T
a
g
O
n
l
y
i
n
L
e
v
e
l
s
A
&
B
o
n
l
y
2-h
r
m
a
x
i
m
u
m
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
f
o
r
l
e
v
e
l
s
1
&
2
o
n
l
y
TOTAL
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
d
b
y
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
D
a
t
a
&
S
u
r
v
e
y
i
n
g
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
PA
R
K
I
N
G
S
T
U
D
Y
LO
T
2
TIM
E
LEV
E
L
2
LEV
E
L
3
LEVEL 4 LEVEL 5
LE
V
E
L
B
(
U
t
i
l
i
t
y
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
O
n
l
y
)
LE
V
E
L
A
LEV
E
L
1
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
#
:
15
-
1
0
8
5
Day:Saturday
Cit
y
:
An
a
h
e
i
m
Date:4/4/2015
GR
O
U
N
D
LE
V
E
L
A
LE
V
E
L
1
A
LEVEL 3B
Em
p
l
o
y
e
e
V
i
s
i
t
o
r
H
C
E
V
R
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
2
0
M
i
n
u
t
e
M
o
t
o
r
c
y
c
l
e
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
Re
s
e
r
v
e
d
Cit
y
P
o
o
l
c
a
r
s
On
l
y
C
i
t
y
C
a
r
p
o
o
l
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
O
n
l
y
Vi
s
i
t
o
r
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
Re
s
e
r
v
e
d
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
O
n
l
y
Vis
i
t
o
r
H
C
20
M
i
n
u
t
e
Pic
k
-
U
p
Regular
C
i
t
y
C
a
r
p
o
o
l
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
Sp
a
c
e
s
26
16
10
4
1
65
20
10
5
32
69
43
17
4
1
59 4 133 519
10
:
0
0
A
M
11
4
0
2
0
0
5
0
5
0
4
0
5
5
0
0
19 0 5 65
11
:
0
0
A
M
11
5
1
1
0
0
5
0
5
0
4
0
5
5
0
0
19 0 5 66
12
:
0
0
P
M
12
11
2
1
0
0
5
0
5
0
4
0
5
5
0
0
21 0 5 76
1:
0
0
P
M
11
11
2
1
0
0
7
0
5
0
4
0
5
5
0
0
19 0 6 76
2:
0
0
P
M
12
10
2
2
0
0
7
0
5
0
4
0
6
5
0
0
21 0 6 80
3:
0
0
P
M
12
12
2
3
0
0
11
0
5
0
5
0
6
5
0
0
20 0 6 87
4:
0
0
P
M
13
9
0
1
0
0
12
0
5
0
5
0
7
2
0
0
22 0 11 87
5:
0
0
P
M
13
9
0
1
0
0
8
0
5
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
23 0 7 73
6:
0
0
P
M
12
12
0
1
0
0
10
0
5
0
3
0
3
1
0
0
23 0 7 77
7:
0
0
P
M
12
15
0
1
0
0
20
0
5
0
4
0
5
1
0
0
23 0 7 93
8:
0
0
P
M
13
16
1
0
0
0
26
0
5
0
6
0
4
1
0
0
24 0 7 103
9:
0
0
P
M
13
16
0
0
0
0
38
0
5
0
6
0
4
1
0
0
24 0 7 114
10
:
0
0
P
M
11
11
0
0
0
0
24
0
5
0
5
0
4
1
0
0
24 0 7 92
11
:
0
0
P
M
11
4
0
0
0
0
10
0
5
0
4
0
3
1
0
0
24 0 9 71
12
:
0
0
A
M
8
3
0
0
0
0
7
0
5
0
4
0
2
0
0
0
23 0 13 65
PA
R
K
I
N
G
S
T
U
D
Y
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
d
b
y
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
D
a
t
a
&
S
u
r
v
e
y
i
n
g
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
LO
T
3
TIM
E
GR
O
U
N
D
L
E
V
E
L
B
LE
V
E
L
1
B
LE
V
E
L
2
B
L
E
V
E
L
2
A
TOTAL
Project #:15-1085 Day:Saturday
City:Anaheim Date:4/4/2015
TIME Regular HC Regular HC Vanpool TOTAL
Spaces 37 3 2 42
10:00 AM 2 0 0 2
11:00 AM 4 0 0 4
12:00 PM 7 0 0 7
1:00 PM 13 0 0 13
2:00 PM 17 0 0 17
3:00 PM 15 0 0 15
4:00 PM 9 0 0 9
5:00 PM 13 0 0 13
6:00 PM 20 0 0 20
7:00 PM 19 0 0 19
8:00 PM 18 0 0 18
9:00 PM 20 0 0 20
10:00 PM 13 0 0 13
11:00 PM 9 0 0 9
12:00 AM 3 0 0 3
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
PARKING STUDY
LOT 4
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
#
:
15
-
1
0
8
5
Day:Saturday
Ci
t
y
:
An
a
h
e
i
m
Date:4/4/2015
Re
g
u
l
a
r
T
O
T
A
L
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
H
C
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
H
C
V
a
n
p
o
o
l
T
O
T
A
L
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
Va
l
e
t
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
TO
T
A
L
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
H
C
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
H
C
V
a
n
p
o
o
l
1
0
M
i
n
u
t
e
T
O
T
A
L
Sp
a
c
e
s
6
6
24
1
1
26
19
32
51
8
6
1
5 20 103
10
:
0
0
A
M
5
5
8
0
0
8
11
5
16
8
2
0
0 10 39
11
:
0
0
A
M
6
6
20
0
0
20
11
7
18
8
2
1
4 15 59
12
:
0
0
P
M
6
6
24
0
0
24
14
33
47
8
5
1
4 18 95
1:
0
0
P
M
6
6
23
1
0
24
14
31
45
8
4
1
5 18 93
2:
0
0
P
M
6
6
24
1
0
25
14
28
42
8
4
1
4 17 90
3:
0
0
P
M
6
6
23
1
0
24
14
36
50
8
2
0
5 15 95
4:
0
0
P
M
6
6
23
1
0
24
13
37
50
7
4
1
5 17 97
5:
0
0
P
M
6
6
23
1
0
24
14
35
49
8
4
1
4 17 96
6:
0
0
P
M
6
6
23
1
0
24
14
36
50
8
4
0
4 16 96
7:
0
0
P
M
6
6
24
1
0
25
14
32
46
8
3
0
5 16 93
8:
0
0
P
M
6
6
24
1
0
25
14
31
45
8
6
1
5 20 96
9:
0
0
P
M
5
5
24
1
1
26
14
33
47
8
6
1
5 20 98
10
:
0
0
P
M
5
5
33
0
3
36
14
29
43
8
6
1
5 20 104
11
:
0
0
P
M
3
3
18
1
2
21
11
17
28
5
2
0
4 11 63
12
:
0
0
A
M
1
1
2
0
0
2
7
4
11
2
0
0
2 4 18
5C
5D
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
d
b
y
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
D
a
t
a
&
S
u
r
v
e
y
i
n
g
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
PA
R
K
I
N
G
S
T
U
D
Y
LO
T
5
GRAND TOTAL
TI
M
E
5A
5B
Project #:15-1085 Day:Saturday
City:Anaheim Date:4/4/2015
TIME Regular HC TOTAL
Spaces
10:00 AM 0 0 0
11:00 AM 2 0 2
12:00 PM 15 0 15
1:00 PM 49 0 49
2:00 PM 51 0 51
3:00 PM 28 0 28
4:00 PM 29 0 29
5:00 PM 29 0 29
6:00 PM 38 0 38
7:00 PM 61 0 61
8:00 PM 80 0 80
9:00 PM 52 0 52
10:00 PM 25 0 25
11:00 PM 8 0 8
12:00 AM 0 0 0
Notes:This lot is for Valet Parking Only
There were no marked spaces. There are
approximately 48 spaces under the roof
and approximately 35 spaces in the
marked area.
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
PARKING STUDY
LOT 6
Project #:15-1085 Day: Saturday
City:Anaheim Date: 4/4/2015
TIME Regular TOTAL
Spaces 70 70
10:00 AM 14 14
11:00 AM 17 17
12:00 PM 33 33
1:00 PM 36 36
2:00 PM 32 32
3:00 PM 33 33
4:00 PM 34 34
5:00 PM 35 35
6:00 PM 30 30
7:00 PM 30 30
8:00 PM 33 33
9:00 PM 36 36
10:00 PM 31 31
11:00 PM 28 28
12:00 AM 21 21
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
PARKING STUDY
LOT 7
Project #:15-1085 Day:Saturday
City:Anaheim Date:4/4/2015
TIME Regular Unmarked TOTAL
Spaces 52 52
10:00 AM 21 21
11:00 AM 25 25
12:00 PM 51 51
1:00 PM 52 52
2:00 PM 52 2 54
3:00 PM 51 2 53
4:00 PM 52 52
5:00 PM 52 2 54
6:00 PM 52 2 54
7:00 PM 52 3 55
8:00 PM 52 2 54
9:00 PM 52 2 54
10:00 PM 39 2 41
11:00 PM 25 1 26
12:00 AM 9 1 10
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
PARKING STUDY
LOT 8
Project #:15-1085 Day:Saturday
City:Anaheim Date:4/4/2015
North Side
Regular Green Zone Regular
(Unmarked)(Unmarked)(Marked)
Spaces 8 6 8
10:00 AM 13 7 7
11:00 AM 12 7 8
12:00 PM 14 8 8
1:00 PM 15 6 8
2:00 PM 12 8 7
3:00 PM 13 7 8
4:00 PM 12 6 6
5:00 PM 15 8 8
6:00 PM 15 6 7
7:00 PM 16 9 8
8:00 PM 18 9 8
9:00 PM 13 9 8
10:00 PM 17 9 7
11:00 PM 16 7 8
12:00 AM 18 8 5
Notes:
No Parking This Tract 8 AM-12 Noon Monday Street Sweeping
(North & South Sides)
PARKING STUDY
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
TIME
South Side
from Lemon St to Anaheim Blvd
ELM ST
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
#
:
15
-
1
0
8
5
Day:Saturday
Ci
t
y
:
An
a
h
e
i
m
Date:4/4/2015
So
u
t
h
S
i
d
e
North Side South Side
Re
g
u
l
a
r
D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
U
n
m
a
r
k
e
d
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
U
n
m
a
r
k
e
d
R
e
d
Z
o
n
e
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
R
e
d
Z
o
n
e
(U
n
m
a
r
k
e
d
)
(M
a
r
k
e
d
)
(U
n
m
a
r
k
e
d
)
Sp
a
c
e
s
8
9
5
280'208'
10
:
0
0
A
M
7
0
9
1
8 0
11
:
0
0
A
M
7
0
9
1
1
1 15 0
12
:
0
0
P
M
7
1
0
9
2
3
27 0
1:
0
0
P
M
8
0
9
2
4
27 0
2:
0
0
P
M
7
0
9
2
4
27 0
3:
0
0
P
M
7
0
9
1
4
28 0
4:
0
0
P
M
7
0
9
2
4
28 0
5:
0
0
P
M
10
1
0
9
2
4
28 0
6:
0
0
P
M
10
1
0
9
2
1
4
27 0
7:
0
0
P
M
10
0
9
2
4
28 0
8:
0
0
P
M
10
2
0
9
2
1
4
27 0
9:
0
0
P
M
10
1
0
8
2
4
28 0
10
:
0
0
P
M
10
1
0
9
1
3
21 0
11
:
0
0
P
M
10
0
5
1
13 0
12
:
0
0
A
M
8
0
1
1
4 0
No
t
e
s
:
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
d
b
y
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
D
a
t
a
&
S
u
r
v
e
y
i
n
g
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
PA
R
K
I
N
G
S
T
U
D
Y
No
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
T
h
i
s
S
i
d
e
8
A
M
-
1
2
N
o
o
n
M
o
n
d
a
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
w
e
e
p
i
n
g
(
N
o
r
t
h
&
S
o
u
t
h
S
i
d
e
s
)
No Parking Unauthorized Vehicles
No
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
An
y
t
i
m
e
So
u
t
h
S
i
d
e
fr
o
m
L
e
m
o
n
S
t
t
o
A
n
a
h
e
i
m
B
l
v
d
fr
o
m
A
n
a
h
e
i
m
B
l
v
d
t
o
C
l
a
u
d
i
n
a
S
t
from Claudina St to Philadelphia St
TI
M
E
No
r
t
h
S
i
d
e
No
r
t
h
S
i
d
e
SA
N
T
A
A
N
A
S
T
Un
m
a
r
k
e
d
Perpendicular (Unmarked)Perpendicular (Unmarked)
Location: 15-1085 Day:Saturday
City:Anaheim Date:4/4/2015
Green Zone Regular Regular
(Unmarked) (Unmarked) (Unmarked)
Spaces 3 16 13 4
10:00 AM 1 14 0 18 1
11:00 AM 4 22 0 18 4
12:00 PM 4 24 0 19 4
1:00 PM 4 23 0 21 4
2:00 PM 4 22 0 19 5
3:00 PM 4 22 0 15 4
4:00 PM 5 23 0 21 4
5:00 PM 4 21 1 21 5
6:00 PM 4 22 1 20 5
7:00 PM 4 23 0 19 5
8:00 PM 4 24 1 21 6
9:00 PM 4 23 1 20 5
10:00 PM 4 20 0 22 5
11:00 PM 4 18 0 15 3
12:00 AM 4 18 0 13 1
Notes:
No Parking This Tract 8am-12 noon Monday- Street Sweeping
(North & South Sides)
No Parking
Hydrant
PARKING STUDY
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
TIME East Side West Side
From Broadway to Santa Ana St
CLAUDINA ST
No Parking 12
Midnight to 6
AM
Planning
Commission
Hearing 6/15/15
PROPOSED DISTILLERY
500 S. ANAHEIM BLVD.
PAUL W. VICKNAIR COMMENTS
BLVD ONE
ATTACHMENT NO. 8
Housing Density is Increasing Near
the Packing House
Brookfield (Domain) 50 Now / 40 New
Watts Communities (Circa) 42 New
Blvd One – 36 Now
Brookfield (Colony) – 100’s of
Townhomes – Now & New
Lennar (Turnberry) – 76 New
Several Housing Developments with
Seniors or Disabled Closeby
Center St has 100’s of Such Units
Center St also is home to Seniors living
in an Assisted Living Development
Senior and the Disabled are at
Increased risk to unsafe traffic
Nearby Parking Infrastructure &
Street Safety Have Not Kept Pace
Packing House Customers May Drive
Haphazardly Finding Parking
Such Distracted Driving May (and
often does) Lead to Accidents
The Santa Ana / Anaheim Blvd
Intersection has had frequent car
collisions
Packing House Vendors Currently
Serving Alcoholic Beverages
Several Vendors Inside Packing House
1 Vendor in Breezeway
Anaheim Brewery
More Customers Drinking Alcohol
May Cross Intersection
Customers May Cross Intersection to
Drink at Packing House & New Distillery
Customers Drinking Alcohol are more
likely to be Under the Influence
Customers Under the Influence have
decreased awareness to traffic dangers
and to be hurt in resulting accidents
Govt Agencies Wait Until After a
Problem Develops to Take Action
How Many Accidents Do You Want
Nearby Until Taking Corrective Action?
Can Anaheim Afford to Have its Citizens in
this area placed at risk by govt inaction?
Will it take a Tragedy to Occur Near the
Anaheim / Santa Ana Intersection Before
Something is Done?
Recommendation 1
Make Better Parking Available
Increase Signage Around Packing House
regarding Parking Alternatives
Increase Availability of Shuttle Services to
Nearby Parking Lots during Peak Packing
House Hours
Work with Nearby Parking Lots to Develop
More Parking Alternatives
Recommendation 2
Make Packing House Traffic 25MPH
Lincoln Avenue on the North
South Street on the South
Olive Street on the East
Clementine Street on the West
Downtown Fullerton has 25 MPH;
Downtown Anaheim should too
Recommendation 3
Install Left Hand Turning Lights
Install Left Hand Turning Lights on Both
Santa Ana and Anaheim Blvds to
minimize turning accidents
Recommendation 4
Increase Police Enforcement
Use Plainclothes Officers to Monitor
Customers Under the Influence
Have Plainclothes Officers Work with
Nearby Patrol Cars to Stop Suspected
DUI’s in Area
Use Packing House Security Personnel
to Assist WUI Customers in Streets
Summary
There are Several Vendors around the Packing House Already Selling Alcoholic Beverages. Approving This will Provide One More.
Housing Density, Nearby Aging Population, Insufficient Parking, & Outdated Street Safety Create an Unsafe Environment around the Packing House District because of all the alcohol being served
Reasonable Recommendations to Resolve These Issues Have Been Provided
ATTACHMENT NO. 9
MAKE BUILDING
PHOTOS
ATTACHMENT NO. 10
ATTACHMENT NO. 11
JUL 31 2015
#14131
3/30/15 Plan Check Submittal
11
33
C
C
22
A
A
D
D
77
B
B
44
30
'
-
8
"
44
'
-
1
"
34'-2"
123'-10"4'-2"
35
'
-
3
"
93'-11"
128'-0"
11
0
'
-
0
"
F
I
E
L
D
V
E
R
I
F
Y
66
18'-0"
FLOOR PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0"
10'-0"
CLR.
1'-3"7'-8"
CLR.
3'-0"
10'-0"
CLR.
5'-0
"
CLR
.
20
'
-
1
"
C
L
R
.
30" X 48" CLR.
30" X 48"
CLR.
5'-0"5'-0"
30" X 48"
CLR.
21'-3" CLR.
14
'
-
5
"
C
L
R
.
LEASE SPACE C
101
LEASE SPACE D
102
MALL
105
LEASE SPACE B.103
LEASE SPACE A.104
ENTRY
106
ELEC.107
TRASH
108
MEN
109
WOMEN
110
VEST.111
JAN.112
3'-6"
3'-6"
15'-0"
CONC.CURB
TYP.6'-6"
ALIGN
ALIGN
7'-0"
10
'
-
7
"
1'-9"
1
2
'
-
1
0
" 2.1
1-A
A-4.1
A-
4
.1
1B
55
NEW EXTERIOR WALL, SEE STRUCT.
NEW 3 X 8 HSS STEEL COLS. SEE STRUCT
KEY NOTESREF
.
NO.
1
NEW POCKET FOR OVERHEAD DOORS AT RM 105.
SKYLIGHT ABOVE
FULL HEIGHT WALLS TO UNDERSIDE OF ROOF TYPICAL
2
3
4
5
6
--7
8
--9
--10
--11
12
13
14
--
--
--
--
15 --
16 --
NEW 2 X 10 WOOD TRELLIS MEMBERS AT SIDES AND TOP. SEE EXT.
ELEVS & STRUCT
A-2.1
1 .A
A-
3
.1
1 .B
A-
3
.1
1.C
A-3.1
2.C
A-
3
.1
1.D
A-3.1
2.A
A-
3
.1
2 .B
A-3 .1
12'-10"12'-1"5'-10"31'-0"13'-4"
6
6
6
6
46
2
3
1
CL
6'-0"
5
6
6
6
1
A-5.1
A
11
11
2 23
4
7 56889
1010 10
11111111
12
12 13
13
B
WALL LEGEND
EXISTING STUD WALL TO REMAIN
NEW 6" MASONRY WALL
NEW STUD WALL
GENERAL NOTES:
1. LAYOUT RESTROOMS WITH DIMENSIONS TO FINISH SURFACES. CONTRACTOR
TO VERIFY WITH OWNER ALL DIMENSIONS MEET ACCESSIBILTY REQ. PRIOR
TO FRAMING.
2. EXIT DOORS SHALL BE ILLUMINATED AT ANY TIME THE BUILDING IS OCCUPIED,
WITH LIGHT HAVING INTENSITY OF NOT LESS THAN ONE FOOT-CANDLE AT FLOOR
LEVEL.
3. VERIFY ALL EXISTING DIMENSIONS.
4. COMPLETE CHALK-LINE LAYOUT OF ALL PARTITIONS FOR OWNER'S APPROVAL
PRIOR TO DEMOLITION OR TRENCHING FOR NEW FOUNDATIONS OR FRAMING
5. ALL NEW ELECTRICAL SHALL BE EXPOSED AND SHALL BE ORGANIZED, TYP.
6. PROVIDE AN APPROVED FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM THROUGHOUT THE BUILDING.
7. PROVIDE AN APPROVED MONITORING SYSTEM FOR FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM TO
MEET CITY OF ANAHEIM'S FIRE DEPARTMENT REQUIREMENTS AND CBC.
8. PAINT ALL NEW WOOD AND STEEL MEMBERS, TYP.
9. PROVIDE FIRE EXTINGUISHERS AT NOTED LOCATIONS, VERIFY LOCATIONS WITH
THE FIRE DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION, TYP.
10. PROVIDE A DECAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL SYMBOL OF ACCESSIBILITY AT
REQUIRED ENTRANCES. PROVIDE ACCESSIBILITY ROUTE SIGNAGE AS INDICATED
ON PLANS, TYP.
11. PROVIDE OCCUPANCY SIGNAGE, TYP.
12. REFER TO STRUCTURAL, MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING AND INTERIOR
DRAWINGS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORAMTION.
13. EXIT DOORS SHALL SWING IN THE DIRECTION OF EXIT TRAVEL WHEN SERVING
ANY HAZARDOUS AREA OR WHEN SERVING AN OCCUPANT LOAD OF 50 OR MORE.
14. EXITS SHALL BE ILLUMINATION AT ANY TIME THE BUILDING IS OCCUPIED, WITH
LIGHT HAVING AN INTENSITY OF NOT LESS THAN ONE FOOT-CANDLE AT FLOOR
LEVEL.
15. REFER TO PLUMBING FOR GREASE INTERCEPTOR LINES, SAWCUT EXISTING
CONCRETE SLAB AS REQUIRED, REPLACE TO MATCH EXISTING, TYP.
16. PROVIDE A DECAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL SYMBOL OF ACCESSIBILITY AT
REQUIRED ENTRANCES. PROVIDE ACCESSIBILITY ROUTE SIGNAGE AS INDICATED
ON PLANS, TYP.
17. PROVIDE TACTILE EXIT SIGNAGE AT EXIT DOORS SHALL HAVE APPROPRIATE
WORDS:
a) " EXIT STAIR DOWN"
b) " EXIT RAMP DOWN"
c) " EXIT STAIR UP"
18. PROVIDE TACTILE EXIT SIGNAGE WITH THE WORDS " EXIT ROUTE"
CITY OF ANAHEIM
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
City of Anaheim, P.O. Box 3222, Anaheim, CA 92803
PROJECT
IDENTIFICATION:
Make Building (CUP2015-05789 and VAR2015-05014)
PROJECT LOCATION: The proposed Project is located at 500 S. Anaheim Blvd.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project would to permit a brewery, winery and distillery with sales and on-premises consumption of alcoholic beverages; an outdoor patio and
tasting area; and, a retail store to include the sale of beer and wine for off-premises consumption with
fewer parking spaces than required by the Zoning Code. STAFF CONTACT: David See PHONE: (714) 765-4948
NAME OF PROPERTY OWNER:
City of Anaheim, as Successor to Redevelopment Agency PHONE: (714) 765-4317
ADDRESS: 201 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Anaheim, CA ZIP CODE: 92805
AGENT’S NAME (if
applicable):
Same PHONE: Same
ZIP CODE: Same AGENT’S ADDRESS: Same
The Initial Study, as attached and made part of this Negative Declaration, indicates that the above project will
have no significant individual or cumulative adverse impact on the environment.
___ The mitigation measures identified in Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. ___ have been included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects.
XX No mitigation measures have been identified for this project.
Therefore, the above project is recommended for exemption from the requirement to prepare an Environmental
Impact Report pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act.
Authorized Signature – Planning Department
5/21/15
Date
- 1-
A CITY OF ANAHEIM
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
Form Revision Date: 8/29/2011 CASE NOS.: Development Case No. 2015-00029, CUP2015-05789, PCN2015-00117, VAR2015-05014
SITE ADDRESS: 500 South Anaheim Boulevard
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a
"Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetic/Visual Agricultural & Forestry Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality
Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise
Population/Housing Public Services Recreation
Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of
Significance
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the City)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the
project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant
unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures
based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all
potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to
that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
___5-21-15________
Signature of City of Anaheim Representative Date
David J. See__________________________ __714-765-4948____
Printed Name/Title Phone No.
- 2-
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including offsite as well as onsite, cumulative
as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
2) A list of “Supporting Information Sources” must be attached and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the Narrative Summary for each section.
3) Response Column Heading Definitions:
a) Potentially Significant Impact is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be
significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination
is made, an EIR is required.
b) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than
Significant Impact”. The mitigation measures must be described, along with a brief explanation of
how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
c) Less Than Significant Impact applies where the project creates no significant impacts, only Less
Than Significant impacts.
d) No Impact applies where a project does not create an impact in that category. A “No Impact”
answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply
does not apply to projects like the one proposed (e.g., the project falls outside of a fault rupture zone).
A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a
project-specific screening analysis).
4) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to a tiering, program EIR, Master EIR, or other CEQA
process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (Section
15062(c)(3)(D)). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether
such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Incorporated”, describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier
document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
5) Incorporate into the checklist any references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., the General
Plan, zoning ordinance). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where
appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
6) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.
- 3-
Project Setting: The subject 0.44-acre Project site is developed with a 10,590 square foot, one story
commercial building that was previously occupied by an auto repair facility. The property is located at the
southeast corner of Anaheim Boulevard and Santa Ana Street. This site is located adjacent to the Packing
House food hall to the north, condominiums (under construction) to the south, a public utility substation to the
east, and condominiums to the west. The site is accessible from both Anaheim Boulevard and Santa Ana
Street.
The site currently has a General Plan land use designation of Low Medium Density Residential. Zoning for the
Project site is Neighborhood Commercial District in the South Anaheim Boulevard Corridor (SABC) Overlay. Figure 1, Project Location, shows the existing site and its surroundings.
Project Description: The applicant requests: 1) a conditional use permit to permit a brewery, winery and
distillery with on-premises sales and consumption of alcoholic beverages, an outdoor patio and tasting area,
and a retail store to include the sale of beer and wine for off-premises consumption; 2) a Zoning Code amendment to allow alcoholic beverage manufacturing facilities and the sale of alcoholic beverages for off-
premises consumption in the Neighborhood Commercial district of the South Anaheim Boulevard Corridor
Overlay zone; 3) an associated determination of public convenience or necessity related to the sale of alcoholic
beverages for off-premises consumption in conjunction with the aforementioned uses; and 4) a variance to
permit less parking than required by Code and off-site parking to permit the aforementioned brewery, winery,
distillery, and retail store.
- 4-
Figure 1. Project Location
- 5-
Environmental Issues Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No
Impact
I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway or local scenic expressway, scenic highway, or eligible scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Narrative Summary (a – d): No Impact. The proposed project involves the reuse of an existing commercial building to a
brewery, winery, retail store, and distillery with an outdoor patio. The project site is flat and located in an area adjacent to residential, utility substation, and commercial uses. The project site is not located in a scenic vista and does not contain any eligible scenic resources. The proposed reuse of the site in the existing building ensures that any future uses would be compatible visually with surrounding residential uses. Outdoor lighting would be consistent with lighting of similar buildings in the area. No impacts would occur.
II. AGRICULTURE & FOREST RESOURCES -- In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-
agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Narrative Summary (a – e): No Impact. The project site is identified as “urban and built-up land” on the most recent Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program map for Orange county. The project site and surrounding areas do not contain agricultural uses or related operations. Therefore, the project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural uses. No agricultural zoning is present in the surrounding area and no
nearby lands are enrolled under the Williamson Act. As such, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. No impacts would occur.
III. AIR QUALITY -- Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
- 6-
Environmental Issues Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Narrative Summary: No Impact. The project site is located in the Southern California Air Basin (SoCAB). The SoCAB has been designated as a non-attainment area as the area does not meet National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for
certain pollutants regulated under the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA). The SoCAB fails to meet national standards for ozone (O3) and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), and is therefore considered a Federal non-attainment area for these pollutants. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is required, pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act, to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants for which the SoCAB is in non-attainment.
The project would be subject to the SCAQMD’s 2012 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The AQMP contains a
comprehensive list of pollution control strategies directed at reducing emissions and achieving ambient air quality standards. These strategies are developed, in part, based on regional population, housing, and employment projections prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). SCAG is the regional planning agency for Orange County and addresses regional issues relating to transportation, the economy, community development, and the environment. SCAG prepared the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), which forms the basis of the land use and transportation portions of the AQMP. SCAG’s RTP is utilized in the preparation of the air quality forecasts and the air quality consistency analysis that is included in the AQMP.
A project is consistent with the AQMP if it is consistent with the population, housing and employment assumptions that were used in the development of the AQMP. The 2012 AQMP incorporates SCAG’s RTP socioeconomic forecast projections of regional population growth as the project is consistent with the growth anticipated under the City’s General Plan. Because the project is consistent with the projections in the AQMP, it can be concluded that the project would be consistent with the
projections in the AQMP. Based on the above discussion, implementation of the project would result in no significant impact related to implementation of the applicable air quality plans. (b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
- 7-
Environmental Issues Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than Significant
Impact
No Impact
Narrative Summary: EIR No. 330 addressed the air quality impacts associated with implementation of the General Plan
and Zoning Code Update Program (Section 5.2.4). EIR No. 330 acknowledges that though planned development within the City would ultimately be market driven, for modeling purposes, the Air Quality analysis assumed that all allowable uses will be implemented by the year 2025 and emissions are based on this horizon. Construction activity would cause temporary, short-term emissions of various air pollutants. Though information regarding specific development projects, soil types, and
the locations of receptors would be needed in order to quantify the level of impact, it is reasonable to conclude that given the amount of development that the General Plan and Zoning Code Update could accommodate, some major construction activities could be occurring at any given time which could exceed SCAQMD’s adopted significance thresholds. Actual significance would be determined on a project by project basis as development applications are submitted.
Operational impacts could result from local and regional vehicle emissions generated by future traffic growth, as well as
direct emissions due to the use of on-site utilities and consumer goods associated with the proposed land uses. Regarding emissions from mobile sources, because of more stringent emission standards and improved technology related to newer vehicles, future emissions generated within the City would be less than current levels. Emissions from various industrial and commercial processes allowed under the General Plan and Zoning Code Update are controlled at the local and regional level through permitting and would be subject to further study and health risk assessment prior to the issuance of any
necessary air quality permits and are not further addressed in the analysis. However, even after the application of Goals and Policies, as well as Mitigation Measures to reduce air quality impacts, cumulative mobile source and area source emissions related to future growth would exceed the daily SCAQMD thresholds for CO2, NOx, ROG, and PM10 in the SCAB region, which is a federal non-attainment area. This is considered a significant and unavoidable adverse impact, and the Anaheim City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations with regard to this potential impact.
Although implementation of development consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Code Update will result in significant regional air quality impacts, it is consistent with the AQMP and other regional plan strategies to reduce the number of trips and the length of trips in the region, and to improve the balance between jobs and housing at the sub-regional level. The General Plan and Zoning Code Update facilitates the development of housing opportunities in close proximity with regional employment and transportation centers. Therefore, the General Plan and Zoning Code Update is consistent with the AQMP
and this is not considered to be a significant impact.
Projected CO concentrations at build out are below the State and Federal 1-hour and 8-hour standards, therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated.
The proposed project involves the reuse of an existing commercial building to a brewery, winery, retail store, and distillery
with an outdoor patio. No expansion to the existing commercial building is proposed. The proposed project would not result
in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified EIR No. 330. No mitigation measures are required. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Narrative Summary: Less Than Significant Impact. Any project which contributes a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant for which the region is in non-attainment would result in a cumulatively significant impact. The regional emissions calculated for the Project are less than the applicable SCAQMD thresholds, which are designed to assist the SoCAB in attaining the applicable State and Federal ambient air quality standards. These standards apply to both primary (criteria and precursor) and secondary pollutants (O3). Although the Project site is located in a region that is in non-attainment
for O3, PM10 and PM2.5, the emissions associated with the Project would not be cumulatively considerable as the emissions would be below SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, the Project will not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact of any criteria pollutant and impacts would be less than significant. No significant impacts would occur. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Narrative Summary: No Impact. The proposed Project is located near a residential area. Therefore, there are sensitive receptors in the immediate vicinity of the project site. SCAQMD’s localized significance thresholds (LSTs) represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedence of the most stringent applicable Federal and State standards. The incremental increase in emissions from construction activities associated with the Project would be below SCAQMD LSTs. In addition, construction of the Project would comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements for dust suppression, which would limit emissions of particulate matter. Therefore, construction and operation of the Project is not expected to cause or contribute to a significant increase in the concentration of criteria pollutants. Impacts to sensitive receptors would be less than significant. No significant impacts would occur.
- 8-
Environmental Issues Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than Significant
Impact
No Impact
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Narrative Summary: No Impact. No objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people are expected as a result of
either grading or construction of the project. Although construction equipment and vehicles associated with the development of the site may produce exhaust emissions, any potential resulting odor would be intermittent, temporary and less than significant in nature. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game
or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan?
Narrative Summary (a – f): No Impact. There are no candidate, sensitive or special status species on the site. The project site does not contain and is not adjacent to any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. There are no wetlands
on or near the project site. The site is entirely surrounded by existing residential, utility, and commercial development and offers no opportunities to contribute to a habitat linkage of any kind. Therefore, the project would not interfere with the movement of native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. The project does not conflict with ordinances protecting biological resources and no impact would occur in this regard. Any commercial project would be an extension of the existing commercial land uses along the South Anaheim Boulevard corridor. Lastly, the project site is not located in the Orange
County Central and Coastal Natural Community Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan area. No impact to biological resources would occur.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and/or identified on the Qualified Historic Structures list of the Anaheim Colony Historic District Preservation Plan (April 15, 2010)?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
- 9-
Environmental Issues Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than Significant
Impact
No Impact
Narrative Summary (a – d): No Impact. The project site is currently developed with a 10,590 square foot commercial
building. The site is located in an urbanized setting with surrounding residential, utility, and commercial uses. The site includes a historical resource identified in the Anaheim Citywide Historic Preservation Plan (May 18, 2010). There are no known archaeological resources at the project site or vicinity. Therefore, no impacts to archaeological resources are anticipated. The project site is flat and urbanized and no unique paleontological or unique geologic resources/features exist.
Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. No impacts would occur.
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Narrative Summary (a i and ii): No Impact. There are no known active earthquake faults or Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zones that traverse the City. While no active or potentially active faults traverse the City, the entire Southern California region is considered to be seismically active. The City is located between two major active fault zones: the Newport-Inglewood fault zone and the Whittier-Elsinore fault zone. The Newport-Inglewood fault passes within seven miles of the western limits of the City. It is considered capable of generating an earthquake with a magnitude of 6.9 on the Richter scale. The Whittier-Elsinore
fault passes within one mile of the northeastern end of the City and is capable of generating an earthquake with a magnitude of 6.8 on the Richter scale. In light of this, all structures at the project site would be constructed to the standards prescribed by the California Building Code (CBC), as amended by the City of Anaheim, in order to reduce any risks associated with seismic activity. No impacts would occur. iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
Narrative Summary (a iii and iv): No Impact. No building expansion is proposed; therefore, the project is not subject to liquefaction or landslide potential as identified by the State of California Seismic Hazard Zones Map (Los Alamitos Quadrangle March 25, 1999). Development of the site would comply with the State of California’s Special Publication 117A,
which provides guidelines for developing in seismically sensitive areas. No impacts would occur. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Narrative Summary: Less Than Significant Impact. Because the proposed project would eventually involve grading activities for site work that would occur on flat ground, there would be negligible soil erosion and/or loss of topsoil. However, all grading activity would need to comply with the City of Anaheim’s existing ordinances and policies, including those aimed at erosion control. Upon completion of the Project, the site would be completely developed, which would reduce the potential for
erosion. Impacts would be less than significant. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Narrative Summary: Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is not subject to liquefaction potential as identified by the State of California Seismic Hazard Zones Map (Los Alamitos Quadrangle March 25, 1999). A geotechnical report will not be required to address soil conditions, including the potential for unstable soils, liquefaction, lateral spreading or collapse,
prior to development of the site. In addition, development would comply with the State of California’s Special Publication 117A, which provides guidelines for developing in seismically sensitive areas. Impacts would be less than significant. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Section 1803.5.3 of the
California Building Code (2010), creating substantial risks to life or property?
- 10-
Environmental Issues Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than Significant
Impact
No Impact
Narrative Summary: Less Than Significant Impact. As indicated in responses c) and d) above, a geotechnical report will
not be required to address soil conditions on the site prior to any project development on the site. In addition, the site would be developed in compliance with the State of California’s Special Publication 17A, which provides guidelines for developing in seismically sensitive areas. Impacts would be less than significant. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
Narrative Summary: No Impact. The project would tie into the existing sewer system. Septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would not be constructed on this site. No impacts would occur.
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases
Narrative Summary: Less Than Significant Impact. EIR No. 330, prepared for the General Plan and Zoning Code Update Project, did not evaluate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions impacts because this impact area was not included in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Appendix G checklist and the City did not have adopted GHG
thresholds at the time of preparation.
In 2013, the Anaheim City Council certified Supplemental EIR No. 346, as a supplemental EIR to EIR No. 330. EIR No. 346 was prepared to serve as environmental documentation for the Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project. In accordance with the amendments to the CEQA Guidelines, inventories were compiled to forecast GHG emissions generated by the General Plan and Zoning Code Update Project (analyzed by EIR No. 330), as well as the Housing
Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project (analyzed by Supplemental EIR No. 346).
As identified in Section 5.2 of Supplemental EIR No. 346, the GHG emissions associated with build-out of the General Plan as described by the General Plan and Zoning Code Update Project and the Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project would exceed the SCAQMD’s GHG efficiency threshold. Mitigation measures from EIR No. 330 along new mitigation measures prepared for Supplemental EIR No. 346 were proposed to reduce these impacts to the extent feasible; however,
even with mitigation the impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. The Anaheim City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations with regard to this potential impact.
The proposed project involves the reuse of an existing commercial building to a brewery, winery, retail store, and distillery with an outdoor patio. No expansion to the building is proposed, and any subsequent construction of a facility on this site will be evaluated for compliance with CEQA.
The proposed project would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified Supplemental EIR No. 346. No mitigation measures are required.
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Narrative Summary: Less Than Significant Impact. During grading and construction activities, the contractor would be required to comply with Chapter 10.09 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, which prohibits the active or passive discharge or disposal of soil or construction debris into the storm drain. Additionally, the owner/contractor is required to comply with the current version of the State’s General Construction Permit, which requires the development and implementation of a
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. This Plan addresses the prevention or elimination of potential pollutants associated with all applicable types of construction related materials and wastes onsite. During the operational phase of the project, treatment control BMPs (currently identified as infiltration onsite) would be implemented to remove pollutants generated to the maximum extent practicable as defined in the County’s Drainage Area Management Plan. Conformance with the three aforementioned requirements would reduce any anticipated impacts to a less than significant level.
- 11-
Environmental Issues Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than Significant
Impact
No Impact
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Narrative Summary: Less Than Significant Impact. The type and amount of hazardous materials to be used on site would
be typical of those used for a typical commercial business. All potentially hazardous materials would be contained, stored, and used in accordance with manufacturer’s instructions and handled In compliance with applicable standards and regulations. Any associated risk would be adequately reduced to a less than significant level through compliance with these standards and regulations. As such, construction and operation of the project would result in a less than significant impact
with regard to routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials relative to the safety of the public or the environment. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Narrative Summary: No Impact. No schools are located within 1/4-mile of the proposed project site. No impacts to school
would occur as a result of the proposed project. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Narrative Summary: No Impact. The project site is not listed on the Envirostor database (http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/), which is maintained by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control. No
impacts would occur. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan (Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center or Fullerton Municipal Airport), would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
Narrative Summary: No Impact. The project site is not located within the Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base or Fullerton Municipal Airport airport influence areas. Therefore, the project would not result in undue exposure to airport related hazards. In addition, due to the project site’s distance from the airport and the infrequency of flight activity over the site, no impacts would occur. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, heliport or helistop, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
Narrative Summary: No Impact. The project site is not located within the immediate vicinity of any private airstrip, heliport or
helistop. No impacts would occur. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Narrative Summary: No Impact. The proposed project would not impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The project site is located within an established commercial and residential area with established emergency and evacuation routes. No impacts would occur. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Narrative Summary: No Impact. The proposed project is not located within a designated high risk widland fire area. The site is located within an established commercial and residential area that is built out with urbanized uses. No wildland areas exist
in the immediate vicinity of the site. The project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. No impacts would occur.
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project:
- 12-
Environmental Issues Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Narrative Summary (a – f): Less Than Significant Impact.
Water Quality
No new construction is proposed; however, grading and construction associated with future site work on the project site would result in temporary disturbance of surface soils, which could potentially result in erosion and sedimentation on site. Erosion
and sedimentation are major visible water quality impacts attributable to construction activities. Any stockpiles of excavated areas would be susceptible to high rates of erosion from wind and rain and, if not manage properly, could result in increased sedimentation in local drainage ways.
During grading and construction activities, the contractor would be required to comply with Chapter 10.09 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, which prohibits the active or passive discharge or disposal of soil or construction debris into the storm drain. Additionally, the owner/contractor would be required to comply with the current version of the State’s General Construction Permit, which requires the development and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Prior to approval of any project on the site, the applicant would be required to submit a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) consistent with the requirements of the Orange county Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) for New Development, if the amount of site work exceeds 5,000 square feet. During construction, Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be implemented to remove pollutants generated to the maximum extent practicable as defined in the DAMP. Conformance with the aforementioned requirements would reduce any anticipated impacts to a less than significant level.
Groundwater Supplies, Streams and Rivers
The volume of local water supply needed to support a commercial development is not substantial. Therefore, the production
rates of local wells would not be measurably affected. Development would not result in a significant deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. In addition, no streams or rivers are located within the project area, and therefore, implementation of the project would not result in substantial erosion or siltation. No significant impacts would occur.
On-Site Drainage
On-site drainage improvements proposed in conjunction with future site work would be required to meet the City’s and Orange County Flood control District’s flood control criteria including design discharges, design/construction standards and maintenance features. All new development projects in the City are also required to include specific design BMPs to ensure that no stormwater runoff generated on site would be allowed to leave the site without pre-treatment for urban pollutants. With
the development of the site, the amount of impervious surfaces would not increase due to the replacement of approximately 4,000 square feet of paved areas with pervious/semi-pervious surfaces. Therefore, the project is not anticipated to generate additional stormwater flow on the project site. Any future development’s drainage system would be required to accommodate runoff at or better than historic, or pre-development, conditions.
With adherence to standard practices and developmental conditions, the proposed project would not have a significant impact on water quality, groundwater supplies, streams or rivers, or create substantial erosion or contamination to the local drainage system. No significant impacts would occur.
- 13-
Environmental Issues Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than Significant
Impact
No Impact
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would
impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche or mudflow?
Narrative Summary (g – j): No Impact. The proposed project site does not contain any housing. In addition, the proposed project would not involve the construction of any housing or buildings that would be located within a flood zone. The proposed project is not located in a flood inundation area. In addition, the project site is flat and not located near any large bodies of water, so no impacts from mudslides, landslides or seiches would occur. No impacts due to flooding, landslides, mudslides,
or seiches would occur. X. LAND USE AND PLANNING -- Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Narrative Summary (a – b): No Impact. The proposed project would be in compliance with the General Plan and zoning. A Zoning Code amendment is being requested to permit alcoholic beverage manufacturing facilities in the Neighborhood Commercial district of the South Anaheim Boulevard Corridor Overlay zone; however, this amendment would not cause additional environmental impacts. The project site would be compatible with surrounding uses and would not divide an
existing neighborhood. No impacts would occur. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
Narrative Summary: No Impact. The project site is not located within an applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan. No impacts would occur.
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Narrative Summary (a – b): No Impact. According to the California Geological Survey, and as illustrated in the Green
Element of the City’s General Plan, there are no significant mineral resources that exist on or in the immediate vicinity of the project site. No impacts would occur.
XII. NOISE -- Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
- 14-
Environmental Issues Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than Significant
Impact
No Impact
Narrative Summary: Less Than Significant Impact. Noise is defined as unwanted sound. Noise can be disturbing or
annoying because of its pitch or loudness. Sensitivity to noise increases during the evening and at night because excessive noise interferes with the ability to sleep. The proposed project site is located in an urbanized built out area within Anaheim. The area surrounding the site is mostly commercial and residential in nature.
Operation
The proposed project involves the reuse of an existing commercial building to a brewery, winery, retail store, and distillery with an outdoor patio. The main source of noise would be vehicle noise from traffic trips of the employees and customers, as well as customers seated within the outdoor patio area. The projected number of traffic trips would be a small percentage of the daily traffic on the surrounding roadways and would not constitute a significant increase in noise. Potential noise generated in the patio area would be mitigated by imposing operational conditions on the entitlements, such as limitations on the hours of operation, amplified music, and outdoor entertainment. No significant impacts would occur.
Construction
The proposed project would generate temporary noise during construction activities related to the site work. Equipment used during construction could create noise impacts through the duration of the construction process. However, these impacts are
temporary and would cease upon completion of construction. Chapter 6.70 of the City’s noise ordinance exempts construction noise between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. Construction is prohibited on Sundays and federal holidays. Adherence to the City Noise ordinance would reduce construction noise to less than significant. No significant impacts would occur. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Narrative Summary: Less Than Significant Impact. The site is surrounded by residential and commercial uses. When the site is developed, the construction phase and associated construction equipment could produce vibration from vehicle travel
as well as demolition, grading and building construction activities; however, construction activities would be limited to daytime hours between 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. Any construction that occurs would utilize typical construction techniques and pile driving would not be used during construction activities. As such, it is anticipated that the equipment to be used during construction would not cause excessive groundborne noise or vibration. No impacts would occur. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Narrative Summary: Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project involves the reuse of an existing commercial building to a brewery, winery, retail store, and distillery with an outdoor patio. Noise sources associated with the future office
use would include vehicle noise and standard mechanical equipment. Long-term ambient noise levels would be similar to those which exist in the surrounding residential and commercial neighborhood and, therefore, would not expose people to a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels. No impacts would occur. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Narrative Summary: Less Than Significant Impact. Any construction activities that occur would result in a temporary periodic increase in ambient noise levels; however, the City exempts noise generated by construction activities between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. Compliance with the Anaheim Municipal Code requirement would
reduce any Project impacts to less than significant. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan (Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center or Fullerton Municipal Airport), would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, heliport or helistop, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Narrative Summary (e – f): No Impact. The proposed Project isn’t located in an airport land use plan. No impacts from
aircraft noise would occur.
- 15-
Environmental Issues Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than Significant
Impact
No Impact
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Narrative Summary (a – c): No Impact. The proposed project involves the reuse of an existing commercial building to a
brewery, winery, retail store, and distillery with an outdoor patio. No housing exists on the site and no housing units are proposed. As such, no replacement housing would be necessary and no increase housing units or population would occur. No impacts to population or housing would occur as a result of the proposed project. XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES -- Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection?
Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities?
Narrative Summary: Less Than Significant Impact.
Fire
The proposed project involves the reuse of an existing commercial building to a brewery, winery, retail store, and distillery with an outdoor patio. A significant increase in the demand for fire service would not occur. Any demand would be minimal,
due to the small size and scope of the intended development. Impacts would be less than significant.
Police
The proposed project involves the reuse of an existing commercial building to a brewery, winery, retail store, and distillery
with an outdoor patio. A significant increase in the demand for police service would not occur. Any demand would be minimal, due to the small size and scope of the intended development. Impacts would be less than significant.
Schools
The proposed project involves the reuse of an existing commercial building to a brewery, winery, retail store, and distillery with an outdoor patio. Because the project would not include the construction of housing, no additional population would be generated. As such, no additional students would be generated as a result of the proposed project and no impacts to schools would occur.
Parks
The proposed project involves the reuse of an existing commercial building to a brewery, winery, retail store, and distillery with an outdoor patio. Because the project would not include the construction of housing, no additional population would be generated. As such, no impacts to parks or recreational facilities would occur.
Other public facilities
The proposed project involves the reuse of an existing commercial building to a brewery, winery, retail store, and distillery with an outdoor patio. Because the project would not include the construction of housing, no additional population would be
generated. As such, no impacts to other public facilities, including libraries, would occur.
- 16-
Environmental Issues Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than Significant
Impact
No Impact
XV. RECREATION -- Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration
of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Narrative Summary: No Impact. The proposed project involves the reuse of an existing commercial building to a brewery, winery, retail store, and distillery with an outdoor patio. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a new or
significant increase in the use of nearby recreational facilities to the point of creating substantial deterioration or the need for construction of new facilities. In addition, the project does not proposed to construct any new recreational facilities. No impacts would occur.
- 17-
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation
system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
Narrative Summary: Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project involves the reuse of an existing commercial
building to a brewery, winery, retail store, and distillery with an outdoor patio. During construction, there would be a temporary minor increase in traffic due to construction vehicles during the construction phase. However, this impact would be temporary.
The General Plan Circulation Element and the City’s Criteria for Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies require a traffic analysis be complete if the Project results in any of the following:
1. When the AM or PM peak hour trip generation is expected to exceed 100 vehicle trips from the proposed development;
2. Projects on the Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP) Highway System which generate 1,600 average daily trips (ADT) or those which are adjacent to CMP Highway System which generate 2,400 ADT;
3. Projects that will add 51 or more trips during either AM or PM peak hours to any monitored CMP intersection; or
4. Any project where variations from the City’s standards and guidelines are proposed.
It is not anticipated that the project would exceed the allowable 100 trips during AM or PM peak hours. Therefore, the project applicant would not be required to consult with the City Traffic Engineer in regards to the potential preparation of a Traffic Impact Analysis prior to Project approval. Neither the roadway nor immediately surrounding intersections are impacted and the additional trips due to implementation of the proposed redesignation of the site as well as any subsequent construction of
an office building would not significantly impact existing conditions. No significant impacts would occur. b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program,
including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
Narrative Summary: No Impact. Since 1994, the CMP has required a traffic impact analysis (TIA) be generated when a project would generate 2,400 or more ADT (OC Transportation Authority 2011). The proposed project would generate substantially less than the CMP threshold. A CMP analysis is not required. No impacts would occur. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
Narrative Summary: No Impact. The proposed project involves the reuse of an existing commercial building to a brewery,
winery, retail store, and distillery with an outdoor patio. Any structures that are constructed in the future would be consistent with the heights of nearby structures and would not impact air traffic patterns. No impacts would occur. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses?
Narrative Summary: No Impact. There are no hazardous road conditions, including sharp curves or dangerous intersections, in the vicinity of the project site. In addition, due to the small size of the project, a minimal number of trips would be generated. As a result, the Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature. No impacts would
occur. e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Narrative Summary: No Impact. The project site is located with an established community and project plans will be reviewed
by the Anaheim Fire Department to ensure that adequate emergency access is provided to the site. No impacts would occur.
- 18-
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
Narrative Summary: No Impact. The project would not conflict with any adopted policies, plans, or programs such as the Anaheim Outdoors Connectivity Plan (Anaheim 2013), supporting alternative transportation and programs related to public transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. No impacts would occur.
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
Narrative Summary: Less Than Significant. Local governments and water districts are responsible to complying with federal regulations, both for wastewater plant operation and collection systems (e.g., sanitary sewers) that convey wastewater
to the wastewater treatment facility. Proper operation and maintenance is critical for sewage collection and treatment as impacts from these processes can degrade water resources and affect human health. The existing Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) wastewater facilities that serve the Project site currently have a surplus capacity, as required by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB). Currently, OCSD
wastewater facilities have a surplus capacity of approximately 240 million gallons per day. The wastewater generated would be minimal and would comprise less than one percent of the existing surplus amount. Wastewater generation would not exceed the wastewater treatment requirements of the existing OCSD facilities. Therefore, impacts of the proposed Project would be less than significant. b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities (including sewer (waste water) collection facilities) or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Narrative Summary: Less Than Significant. The proposed project would be served by the Anaheim Public Utilities
Department (APUD). The proposed project is located within a developed area and there are existing water mains in the streets surrounding the proposed project. The project would be required to connect to these existing water lines. Due to the small size of the project, no significant impacts on existing water infrastructure would occur and the existing facilities would be adequate to serve the wastewater collection requirements of the proposed project. In addition, the Public Works Department
has determined that the project applicant wil not be required to submit a sewer study. Impacts to water or wastewater treatment facilities would be less than significant.
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Narrative Summary: Less Than Significant. Upon development of the site, the amount of impervious surfaces would be decreased. Any construction that occurs would require onsite drainage to be installed. Upon installation, the stormwater from the Project site would be collected by an internal drainage system and delivered to the local area drainage system. The
project would not exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. The project would not require the expansion of existing facilities. No significant impacts would occur. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
(including large-scale developments as defined by Public Resources Code Section 21151.9 and described in Question No. 20 of the Environmental Information Form) from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
Narrative Summary: Less Than Significant. The City’s 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (Anaheim 2011) assumed a
General Plan build out for this site; therefore, there are no anticipated water supply deficiencies that would affect this project and the project would not result in the need to obtain new water entitlements. Impacts would be less than significant. e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments?
- 19-
Narrative Summary: Less Than Significant. The project consists of a redesignation that would allow up to 18,000 square
feet of office uses on the site. The City’s 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (Anaheim 2011) assumed General Plan build out for this site; therefore, there are no anticipated wastewater capacity deficiencies would occur and the Project would not result in the need to construct additional wastewater treatment infrastructure. Impacts would be less than significant. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
h) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to electricity?
I) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial
alterations related to natural gas?
j) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to telephone service?
k) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to television service/reception?
Narrative Summary: Less Than Significant. AB939 requires local jurisdictions to divert at least 50 percent of their solid
waste into recycling. As of 2010, the City is diverting approximately 63 percent of its waste into recycling. Waste from the City is currently being diverted to the Olida Alpha Landfill in the City of Brea and the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill in the City of Irvine. Combined, the two landfills accept approximately 23,500 tons of waste per day, or over seven million tons annually. The project’s contribution of solid waste would be minimal and would not significantly impact landfill operations. No impacts would occur.
The proposed Project site is located in a built-out, urban setting. The site and the surrounding neighborhood are fully served by various utility service providers. There are no anticipated significant service or system upgrades needed to serve the proposed office use. Any increase in demand for these services would be considered to be less than significant. No significant impacts would occur.
- 20-
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE --
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Narrative Summary: As described in the environmental checklist, the project does not have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
The project is located within the SCAQMD which has been designated as a nonattainment area for certain criteria pollutants. Typical construction activities will generate specific criteria pollutants; however, due to the minimal size of the project, it is not
expected to result in a cumulatively considerable impact.
In addition, due to the small scale of the size and scope of the project, it would not adversely affect human beings, either directly or indirectly.
No significant impacts would occur.
- 21-
References
Assembly Bill 32: Global Warming Solutions Act. 2006. Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ab32/ab32.htm. Accessed
on June 6, 2013.
California Emissions Estimator Model Version 2013.2.2. 2014.
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). CEQA & Climate Change. January 2008.
California Department of Conservation (DOC). Agricultural Preserves 2004, Williamson Act Parcels, Orange County,
California. Available at: ftp://ftp.conserv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/wa/Orange_WA_03_04.pdf. Accessed on June 5, 2013.
DOC. California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model. 1997
DOC. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program Map for Orange County. 2010.
DOC. Seismic Hazard Zones Map, Orange 7.5-Minute Quadrangle. April 15, 1998.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Natural Community Conservation Plan and Habitat Conservation
Plan for the County of Orange Central and Coastal Subregion. 1996. Available at: http:///www.dfg.ca.gov/habcon/nccp/status/OrangeCoastal/. Accessed on June 5, 2013.
California Department of Toxic Substances Control. Cortese List. Available at:
http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Cortese_List.cfm. Accessed on June 6, 2013.
California Department of Transportation. Eligible (E) and Officially Designated (OD) [Scenic Highway] Routes.
Available at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic/cahisys.htm. Accessed on June 6, 2013.
California Geologic Survey. Special Publication 117A, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California. September 11, 2008.
City of Anaheim (Anaheim). 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2011.
City of Anaheim. Anaheim Outdoors Connectivity Plan. April 2013.
City of Anaheim. Citywide Historic Preservation Plan. May 2010. Available at:
http://www.anaheim.net/planning/aRT/PlanCouncil-May2010.pdf. Accessed on June 6, 2013.
City of Anaheim. General Plan
Circulation Element
Green Element: Mineral Resource Map Noise Element. Pg. N-9
Safety Element: Dam Inundation Map
City of Anaheim. General Plan and Zoning Code Update Environmental Impact Report No. 330. May 25, 2004.
City of Anaheim. Criteria for Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies.
City of Anaheim. Municipal Code. 1974; updated as recently as February 2013.
Orange County Integrated Waste Management Department. Regional Landfill Options for Orange County Strategic Plan.
December 2001; updated November 2007.
Orange County Public Works. Drainage Area Management Plan. 2003.
Orange County Transportation Authority. Orange County Congestion Management Plan. 2011.
- 22-
Senate Bill 375: Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008. 2008. Available at:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0351-0400/sb_375_bill_20080930_chaptered.pdf. Accessed on June 6, 2013.
Southern California Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2007 Air Quality Management Plan. Available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/aqmp/07aqmp/. Accessed on June 5, 2013.
SCAQMD. Rule 403, Fugitive Dust. Amended June 3, 2005. Available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/rules/reg/reg04/r403.pdf. Accessed on June 5, 2013.
State of California, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change Through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. June 19, 2008. Pg. 4.
United States Census of Population and Housing. 2010.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). Federal Water Pollution Control Act (known as the Clean Water
Act). November 27, 2002.
US EPA. The Green Book, Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants. December 14, 2012.